The Helena independent. [volume] (Helena, Mont.) 1875-1943, 1890-05-22
IMPORTANT TO MINERS.
Continued from Second Page.
Ire controlled by the general provisions of

protests against calling his line or plane a
judicially established one, and contends
that it is established by the original surface
lines, that is, by reference thereto. under
the control thereof, and in accordance
Herewith. In the Elgin case, 118 U. S. 2O6
IS, we find the following, in the opinion of
Mr.. Justice Field:
''The surface lines extended downward
vertically determine the extent of the
claim, except when in its des-
cent cent the the vein passes outside of them,
through the end lines. This means the end
lines of the surface location, for all loca-
tions are measured on the surface. = =
It is better that the boundary plane should
surface location than that they should be
subject to perpetual readjustment according
to. subterranean developments made by
mine workings. - The provision
of the statute that the locator is entitled
throughout their entire depth to all the
which lies inside the surface lines Of his
location, tends strongly to show that the
end lines marked on the ground must con-
troll. This view of the control
ling effect Of the end lines of the surface
location is also sustained by the decision of
this court in the Flagstaff case.''
From those utterances, and from the
tenor OF this case, as we'll as the Flag
staff and Argentine cases, we believe that
we may conclude that the bounding planes
sought to be applied in the respondents
theory to the facts of the case at bar may
properly be said to be determined by the
lines of the surface LOCATION
In the Flagstaff case and the Argentine
case the strike of the vein was at right
angles to the side line of the location, or, as
the court IN the former case says. practi-
cally so, and for the purposes of the deci-
sion treated as such. Therefore, in those
cases, the vital matter before the court was
not question Of the dip, but rather one Of
the strike, and the spirit of those cases
seems to us to be that when the
strike passes out of the location,
through any surface line, that surface
line, and its vertical plane, cut off the
strike, and the miner may not follow the
strike beyond such plane.
We are aware that there is language used
IN the Argentine case that looks toward the
adoption of the appellants theory, herein
in the sense that the side line, under the
an end line to limit, by its vertical plane
the dip, as we'll as to stop the pursuit of the
strike. But there is vital difference be-
tween the facts of the Argentine case and
those now before US, and the language
therein must be viewed in connection with
Justice. Mr.. Chief Justice Marshall, in Cohens
VS.. Virginia, 6 Wheat. $3.50, says: ''It is a
maxim, not to be disregarded. that general
expressions, in every opinion, are to be
taken in connection with the case in which
those expressions are used. If they go be-
ought not to control the Judgment in a
subsequent suit when the very point is pre-
sented for decision. The reason of this
maxim is obvious. Tbs question before
the court is investigated with care and con-
sidered in its full extent. Other principles
which M To c<ro% IN
cred in their relation to the case decided,
but their possible bearing on all other cases
is seldom completely investigated.''
Mr.. Justlce Field is the judicial father of
the mining law of tho United States. BY
his legal learning, and his practical knowl-
edge of mining, he has illumined the path
OF the history of mining adjudications.
His words in the Argentine case and those
of Mr.. Justice Bradley in the Flagstaff
case, were not spoken of state of facts
we can not consent that those dis
tinguished jurists would admit that their
language sanctions the doctrine that appel |
liant applies to the Amy, Non Consolidated
situation.
Turning to the Horseshoe case, the other
of the three cases cited, the facts were also |
entirely variant from those now before us.
These three United States cases have
compelled that court to endeavor to cast
into the procrustean bed of the statute in
dividuals that strained the mould into
which they were forced. But we believe
from those cases that, in the facts now be-
fore us, the principle is, that the north side
line of the Amy terminates the strike of the
vein; and that the dip must be controlled
by the planes of the original end lines.
The Amy people may follow their dip north
between the planes of their end lines as be-
low considered. The object of parallelism
in the end lines is that the locator NAV
have his full section of the lode in its entire
depth. But the determination of the strike
IF the Amy at point on the side line de-
Drives them of the dip northwest of that
POINT, because the dip, in that portion, lies
1nder the apex of the Non-C Consolidated,
The law intends that the plane of the end
inc shall operate as boundary to the
lip, and SO operate at the point where the
strike is ended. If the strike reached
ion, the bounding plane would there OPP
rate upon the dip. If the strike, by rea-
on OF its going out of side line, falls
hort.of reaching the original end line plane,
hat plane must take effect where the strike
70 fact ends. that is, at point on the side
llelism must not be destroyed. We there
ore have the bounding plane operating at
ne point where the apex leaves the north /
de line, and operating parallel to the east /
nd line, and retaining its parallelism as q
marked on the ground. It is not
new line or plane. or one judicially CON
5ucted. 1t is determined by the location
mes on the surface. There is never any
adjustment according to subsequent de.
Ielopments. The parallelism of the end
me planes is fixed by location. and never
aries. The point of departure from the .
lrface lines fixes the point where the end :
me plane is to perform its functions, t
neither that departure be at an end line. as :
|,ntemplated by the statute, or whether ac- +
dent has fixed it at point on side line. :
Complications are soluble upon this the 4
~. The intent of the statute seems to be q
cured.
We will notice some objections made to
is doctrine but which we believe are not
slstainable. It is urged that the principle
i'll not apply to a vein, the strike of which
osses the location at exact right angles to
e side lines. But here there would be no
p in question. The side line would bound
g strike, as in the Flagstaff case.
Again it is suggested: The Non-Consoli-
tied surface location happens to be al
lost exactly parallel, in its lines,
the Amy. If the Non-Consoli- e
ted had been located with its =
lines at right angles to the strike of the .
l IN In the Non-Consolidated ground that is
raiiel to the courts line. Then, it
objected that if the Non Consolidated go
Wn on the dip. within the planes of such e