New-York tribune., 1886-01-12
FIGHTS TO MINING CLAIMS.
OWNERSHIP OF UNDER-sURFACE VEINS.
VARIoUs DECISIONS BY THE UNITED STATES sU
PRFME COURT.

s.p,ous DECISIONS BY THE UNITED STATES sU-
PRKME COURT.
WASHINGTON, Jan. 1.-THE Supreme Court
a, the United States to-day rendered decisions in the
following cases:
lanes w. Campbell, Fred 7. Benson Herman Lucken
and Elizabeth Dudler. Appeal from the Supreme
OF Utah to determine the rights Of the parties to
certain mining ground in that Territory and
follows: The defendants are the owners OF mining
oround known as the Omaha Lode. and in 1877 they
nroourea survey aud plat OF II to he made and filed in
the Land ONCE Salt Lake City, with application for
natept thereof The plaintiffs also the owners of
mining ground in the Territory known the Highland
Raw Lode and the proceedings mentioned were be-
rnn and within the time required, they filed an adverse
claim to three OF the land covered by the
attendants survey II was TO determine the rlght OF
the parties this portion that this action was brought
The District Court gave judgment in favor of the plain
t,Fs for the parcel claimed with the exception
Of fractional part of an acre. The
supreme Court of the Territory affirmed the de-
cision. Tho objections OF the appellants for which
they asked a reversal of the judgment were that the
findings do show that the plaintiffs citizens OF
the United States and the findings of tact are confused.
insufficient and contradictory and also mingled with
conclusions OF law instead Of being separately stated as
reouired By the statute OF Utah. Justice Field in deliv
erlng the opinion of the court held that while it is true
that the provides that mineral lands OF the United
States shall open exploration and purchase only by
cit,zens of the United States and those who do
cored their enton 10 become such and had that OBJ
lection been taken i'll the court below would have been
matter of consideration whether II not obviaed
the objection not fatal. The question could not he
raised in this court for the first time AS to the other
objectOn the court held that findings not drawn
with skill precision but findings not to be
strued with the structures of special plcadngs THE
question, therefore,, the Court adds, ls whether the
location of vein or lode "a running in direction,
but marked on the surface for years and not deve
oped will be allowed to cover calm made Dy others on
ground different rom that thus indicated and developed
by years of labor and large expenditures without once
tion from the complaining parties because subse-
qu mt explorations by the first claimants disclose the
tey supposed and covers the claim other parties
We do think that the original claimants can take the
intended take the vein lode and wore ignorant of
its DIRECTION but 1t was incumbent upon them TO push
their explorations within SInaole time as TO as
certain its true and Indicate to the public in
visible manner the extent and direction OF it, so mat
ground denied the benefit of their labor II by mad
covered by the first claimants. The Highland Bay
claim was taken mp four years after the location OF the
expended upon without objection from the deen iants
Indication from them TO the public nat their own
afterward to raise the objection" Judgment affirmed.
No, loo-Hlram L Brown and others. appellants ast
United states for tue N9rtheTn District q
rect on 70 s@iss the b with costs opnionb by
No siJohn stebbns and others etc. appellants agt.
the Town Of IT. anne inos and o1srs APPEAL from the
Ilinoa Decree affirmed with COSTS Opinion by MI JUS
tee tray. - .. ,,..~ .,. o,
on certl6o ate opinion between tha judges of
the Circuit Of the United states for the southern Dis
,c o .nd me m in a1s ss sa armaT m
3D. and 9th questions and cause remnded for
proceedings not inconsistent with the opinion OF this
COnTt Opinion by Nh Justice Matthews.
No % James johnson and others. plaintiffs in
20 s57mGeorges Wels and others plaintiff in error agt
Joseph wilkins sheriff etc 80. . -
No Goldstucker others. plaintiff in
aS Ss3P1 %as VIII. VITA and others plaintiff IN error as
Joseph wilkins. sheg1l, etc.
500 &c ge Wells and others plaintiff in error agt
Joseph wilkins. sheriff. etc.
66l-GeOrgeS Wells and others, plaintiff In agt
Joseph wilkins. sheriff etc.
o. G62-GeOrge Wells and others plaintiff In at
United states for the Northern District OF florida
Dismissed the Of jurisdiction opinion by Mt
No s53Iohn BransCom and others plaintiff error agt
John WO0d Motion 10 dismiss denied
the Circuit Court Oi the United stat FOR
District Of south Carolina. ON motion Of Charles II
Miles or paniif in erOor DISMISSED with costs NJ ,
No 309-Ihe ilty Council OF Charleston appellant ast
Henry Sedgwick Appeal fIem the Circuit Court of tic
United States the District of South Carolina Dismissed
No GI8iEThe district of Columbia plaintiff
L r Motion 10 dismiss submjtei by Henkle i
aud John Ennis support OF motion. and by Riddle I
No As William Craig appellant agt. Thomas Leltens-
ton Ill sOnd not be carried cut argued by
iut er and z Bar cit in SUPPORT OF motion and by
W Horror and Walter ii @mltl, u opposition thereto
No S-John Patch painun IN error agt l. L White
Passed until 10 moFrog,
oJaefs appellants JoID PSOIthefn ana Otbers, etc
40 1O9-IohnsOn HagOOd control e.gcne'al. etc. and
others pellants. agt Amos Williams, Passed until TO-
10 iio-L NJ Marshall plaintiff error, agt. stephen
Hubbard Argned By Hutd for paintn IN error and by
ID Markham for iant IA error