The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1893-10-22
The Essex County Garnet Mine.

At the opening OF the present October
session the Court Of Appeals rendered n de-
cislon in n case which is OF very exccp
tionnl character in the State OF New York
1t involves question OF mining law. ant
relates to a garnet mine.
The town Of Minerva is in the southwest
corner of the county Of Essex. in the Adj
rondack region. Two men recently dlscov
cred n garnet deposit in the town. and OBJ
tanned from the Commissioners OF the Land
Office consent to work the mine under q
statute passed in 1890 This law provides
TINT all mines minerals. and fossils discov-
cred upon any lands belonging to the pco-
pie OF the State shall be tho property
Of the people: but. to encourage the
discovery OF valuable mineral deposits. it
also declares that any citizen who discovers
any valuable mine or mineral upon the
| public lands, shall be entitled to work tho
mine, and he and his heirs and assigns shall
have tho sole benefit OF the mineral pro-
duced out Of it. upon paying into tho
| State treasury a royalty Of two per cent,
| provided tho consent of the Commissioners
OF the Land Office shall previously have
been obtained.
Tho discUvercrs OF tho Minerva garnet
mine having secured the required consent.
assigned their interests to WILLIAM MOORE
When MOORE attempted to take out the
minerals under his grant from the original
discoveries. he found one SIMEON BROWN
in possession OF the mine and working it;
and thereupon he brought an ejectment
suit to obtain possession Of the land.
In this suit he was beaten, and the Court
Of Appeals holds that he was properly
beaten. Tho mining laws Of this State. &C.
cording to that tribunal do not give the
discoverer OF valuable mine on State
land any title to the land itself. nor do
they operate to grant to such discoverer any
OF the minerals 80 long as they remain in
the land. The effect of the act OF 1890 is
only to give to the discoverer the privilege
OF entering upon the public lands and be-
coming the owner Of the mineral prod
ucts as he takes them out; provided,
of course. he obtains tho required con-
sent and pays the required royalty Tho
plaintiff made mistake in tho legal
remedy which he sought. Instead OF bring
ing an ejectment suit based upon the idea
that he had become the owner Of the mine
and entitled to its possession as such, he
should have instituted suit in equity, in
which by means Of an injunction he could
have protected himself against any inter-
ference by the defendant with the privilege
which lie had acquired from the State OF
working the mine and keeping the products.
What tho discoverer OF mine on the
public lands OF New York obtains from tho
State. says the Court of Appeals, lis the
grant OF mere right or incorporeal priv
ileEe to take ont tho mineral found within
the land OF the STATE. and to have as his |
own only what is so taken out. The act
secures to him right in that respect ex-
elusive az to all the world and of a duration
measured by the existence of tho mineral |
deposit. and by his compliance with conli- |
tions expressed or implied. Such rights |
aro fully cogniaable in courts OF equity.
and resort to these courts for purposes OF |
protection against any Infringement of |
those rights could not fail OF accomplishing
all that is requisite. In this particular case.
therefore. the plaintiff failed, not because
he WAS not entitled to work the mine in
preference to the defendant. but because
he had made mistake in reference to
his legal remedy. Instead Of bringing a suit
On the Jury side OF the court. he should have
applied 10 Judge sitting without a Jury
and exercising the same jurisdiction rs tho
court OF Chancery in England. and should
have obtained from him n permanent in
junction against the defendant.