United States Court of Appeals For the Ninth Circuit . of that territory; thetitle to that portion of the vein was left undisturbed bythe conveyance. It is admitted that this construction of the conveyancecan not he harmouize<l with the ruling of the SupremeCourt of Montana in M. (). P. (\). vs. IJ. & n. Co., 27 Mont. 288. The considerations which impelled the court to the con-clusion it reached in that are identical A\ith those bywhich this court arrived iit its dctenniiuition as to the in-terpretaliiMi which sliould be given to tlic deed in this case,as will Itc seen by ji fo;iip;ui
United States Court of Appeals For the Ninth Circuit . of that territory; thetitle to that portion of the vein was left undisturbed bythe conveyance. It is admitted that this construction of the conveyancecan not he harmouize<l with the ruling of the SupremeCourt of Montana in M. (). P. (\). vs. IJ. & n. Co., 27 Mont. 288. The considerations which impelled the court to the con-clusion it reached in that are identical A\ith those bywhich this court arrived iit its dctenniiuition as to the in-terpretaliiMi which sliould be given to tlic deed in this case,as will Itc seen by ji fo;iip;uison of the opinicui in thatcase Willi llic views by this coiirt in 102 Iloth this court and llie Montana Supreme Court heldthat the character of the projierty and tlie right in the veingiven by the iiatcnt, parlicularly the right to follow itextra-latcrallv, were contit)lliiig considerations in constru- —5— ing deeds of mining property. The Montana court heldthat a conveyance of the claim A, (referring to the cutbelow). without any special mention of extra-lateral rights, wouldcarry the right to follow the vein under B if it wentthere. For exactly the same reason this court held that aconveyance of B by the common owner of the two tracts,would not preclude following the vein under B by theowner of A. In refusing to endorse the conclusionreached by this court, the Supreme Court of the UnitedStates refused to accept or to apply the doctrine of M. Co. vs. B. & B. Co. It seems probable that that learned court was influencedvery laigely by applying the doctrine that a deed of miningproperty ordinarily carries extra-lateral riglits withoutspecific mention of them to tlie extra-lateral right to followthe vein from the remainder of the St. Louis claim intothe Compromise Strij). Referring to the cut above, it would seem as thcmgh thec(mrt was of the view that a conveyance of B wouldt-arry with it tlie <xtra-1ateral riglit wliich tlie commonowner of A
Size: 2328px × 1074px
Photo credit: © The Reading Room / Alamy / Afripics
License: Licensed
Model Released: No
Keywords: ., bookauthorunitedstatescourtofap, bookcentury1900, bookdecade1900
