The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1895-11-12


stead OF two side lines, as in the Amy
Silversmith case. But Judge Hallett
applied the principle OF the Amy-Sll-
versmith, and he so applied 1t after. as
we understand. the United States SUI
preme court had repudlated II.
One month after Judge Hallett's de-
cision, that is. on April 10. 1895. appear
ed the decision in the United States SUI
preme court in the Last Chance Mining
Co.. " Tyler Mining Co., the
case which we have formerly
encountered in "a and 81 Federal. See
l57 u. $. 6S3. The case was decided in
the United States supreme court with
out IL being necessary to treat the
question of the apex and strike pass
ing through an end line and a side line.
But as TO this matter the court said:
1T has been held by this court in the
cases heretofore cited that where the
course OF vein is across instead of
lengthwise OF the location, the side
lines become the end lines. and the end
the side lines; but there has been no
decision as to what extra territorial
rights exist IL vein enters at an end
and passes out at a side line. Is that
case for which no provision has been
made by statute? Are the parties left
10 the old rule OF the common law that
the owner of real estate owns all above
and below the surface, and no more?
Or may the court rely upon some eul-
table doctrine and give to the owner Of
the vein the right to pursue II on its
dip In whatever direction that may go.
within the limits of some equitably Gre
ated end llnes?"
Mr.. Justice Brewer wrote the opin-
ion. There was no dissent. We assume
that Mr.. Justice Field concurred.
The fact that the United States SUI
preme court said. in this case with the
Justice concurring who wrote the Amy
Silversmith decision), that 10 had never
given any decision as to what extra
territorial rights exist II vein enters
at an end line and passes out at a side
line, we think Is sufficient warrant TO
us 10 reopen the discussion as TO what
principle OF decision should apply In
these irregular locations.
We can see but two solutions OF the
difficulty presented in this case: One
is to say that when the apex and strike
cross a located side line. that such side
line becomes an end line, in accordance
with what we understand to be the de-
cision in the Flagstaff case and in the
Amy-Silversmith case In the United
states supreme court The other is TO
apply the Amy-Silversmith doctrine. as
announced I'm the Ninth Montana. We
Will examine what seems to US to be
the legitimate results OF the first prop
osition. Turning again to the diagram,
figure 1: the located east end line OF
the Niagara claim must still remain an
end line. 1t was located as such, II
that means anything; and the apex and
strike pass through 1t. which fact, un-
der any view, means everything. So
this line is, and must remain, an end
line. Then we have the south side line
OF the Niagara also an end line be-
cause the apex and strike pass through
II. SO we have two end lines not par
allpl tn aaCh other mi NJ m 70
each other not far from n right angle.
But the end lines must be parallel. The
result Is that the Niagara cannot fol-
low its dip at all. But the statute says
IL may follow the dip. These difficulties
do not come to US at all as a surprise.
We clearly foresaw them and pointed
them out In the Amy Silversmith case.
% Mont. p. 571.) Thus. we find that the
Niagara claim, under these views, must
be relegated to the common law 1t
owns downward inside OF the perpen-
dicular planes OF its surface lines. But
this result Is not the intent of the law.
(Sec. 1922. II. s. u. 81 The intent is
that the locator shall have the right to
the vein throughout it's entire depth II
the apex lies within Its surface lines,
although the vein. on its dip down
ward, departs from the perpendicular
so as TO extend outside OF the side
lines. BY calling this side line an end
line the whole Intent OF the statute Is
destroyed. and we go back to the sys-
TEN of the Spanish law % Mont. d. $50.
which was deserted I'm the adoption bv
congress OF the American mining laws.
For example, again. in this case re-
verse the direction of the dip, and as
sumo that IL goes north, then the Nj
agara people would take all OF the vein
between the downward planes of the
end line and side line, the lines r II.
and T. the In III n
get a fan-shaped section OF the vein.
rapidly increasing in size with every
foot downward. That Is to say. such
would be the result. unless we adhere
to the common law rule and have no
extra-lateral rights at all. The plain
fact Is that to call the side line an end
line in this case leads us into conse-
quences that totally upset the whole
intent OF the law. We cannot sub
scribe 10 any such doctrine. These
CONCENTRATIONS are not at all new 10
US. We pointed out these difficulties
and absurdities in the Amy-Silversmith
case. and we then hoped that thew
would not again threaten the disturb
ance OF the rights intended to be given
by the mining statutes. We feel now
as we did In the -Silversrlith case
that we are not able TO take the re-
sponsibility OF any such destructive
construction.
Ana why indeed should a located side
line be converted into an end line by n |
COURT The locator never so intended
II. He made the side line the long line /
l.5OO feet In length. intending n 10 he
generally parallel 10 the vein. The law
never intended that such a side line (
should be an end line. IL the side lire Z
Is TO become an end line and the end I
line a side line. then the court WORKING I
this readtustment OF the lines
puts the side lines at a distance 1
from the center OF the ioSl
much greater than 300 feet. Wrhat |
would be done with those lines. and /
this extra surface taken in by them /
Shall they be left so that they will in /
clude a thousand or 1900 feet in width 4
when the law intended the locator 1
should have 600 feet only. or will these /
judicially created side lines be drawn I
In. and thereby new side lines made 4
by the court? But 1.-THE court cannot /