Lyon County times. [volume] (Silver City, Nev.) 1874-1907, 1877-04-07
II. s. SUPREME COURT.
Daney Mining COmpany's Title.

Solomon Heydenfcldt, Plaintiff in
Error, vs. The Daney Gold and
Silver Mining Company.
In error to the Supreme Court of the
State of Nevada.
Mr.. Justice Davis delivered the
opinion of the Court.
This is an action of ejectment to
recover a specific portion of the west
half of the southwest quarter Of sec
tion sixteen, township sixteen, range
twenty-one east, in Lyon county,
Nevada. The land in controversy is
rich In minerals. and was not sur
veyed by the United States until the
wear 1867. Prior to the date # the
survey, or the approval of it, the de-
fendant's grantors and predecessors in
interest had for mining purposes en-
tered upon the land, and claimed, and
occupied it according to the mining
laws and the custom of miners in the
locality. This possession and claim
of ownership have been continuous
and uninterrupted, and the defendant
has expended over $50, 900 in the
construction of improvements for
carrying on the business of mining
on the land.
The plaintiff claims title from the
state by patent. 1t is dated the 14th
day of July, 1868. and was issued on
the assumption that sections sixteen
and thirty-six, whether surveyed or
unsurveyed, and whether containing
minerals or not, were granted to the
state for the support of common
schools, by the seventh section of the
Nevada enabling act, approved March
81, 1864. 13 Stat, 80.
This Interpretation of that act is
denied by the general government,
and the defendant has patent of the
I'd OF March, 1874, from the United
States for the land in controversy,
issued in conformity with the laws OF
Congress on the subject of mining.
Which is the better title is the point
for decision. 1t has been the settled
policy of the government to promote
the development of the mining re-
sources Of the country, and as mining
is the chief industry in Nevada, the
question presented for decision is of
great interest to the people of that
State.
The seventh section of that act is
as follows: THAT sections num-
bered sixteen aud thirty six in every
township, and where such sections
have been sold or otherwise disposed
of by any act of Congress, other lands
equivalent thereto, IN legal subdivis-
sions of not less than one quarter
section, and as contiguous as may be,
shall be and are hereby granted to
said state for the support of common
Schools"
1t is true that there are words Of
present grant iD this law, but IN con
STRUNG it we are not to look at any
single phrase in it, but to its whole
scope, in order to arrive at the inten-
ton of the makers of il. at is bet
ter always says Sharswood, Judge,
"to adhere to plain common-sense
Interpretation of the words of a
statute, than to apply to them refined
and technical rules Of grammatical
construction" = (Gyges' Estate, 65
Pa. State, 312.)
If literal Interpretation of any
part of it would operate uniustiy or
lead to absurd results and be contrary
to the evident meaning of the act
taken as a whole, it will be rejected.
And there is no better way Of discov-
.ering the true meaning of y law, when
there are expressions in 1t which are
rendered ambiguous by their connec-
'tion with other clauses, than by con-
,sidering the necessity for it and the
causes which induced the Legislature
to pass it. With these rules as our
guide it is not difficult, we think, to
give true construction to the law in
controversy.
Congress, at the time, was desirous
that the people Of the Territory of
Nevada should form state govern
ment and come into the Union. The
terms on which this admission could
he obtained were proposed, and, as
was us,omary in the enabling acts
for new states, the particular sections
of the public lands to be donated to
the state for the use of common
schools were specified. These sec
tions had not been surveyed, nor had
Congress then made, or authorized
to be made, any disposition of the
public lands within the Territory Of
Nevada.
But this condition of things did