The San Francisco call., 1896-02-04
THE COURT OF APPEALS,
Nine Decisions Handed Down
the First Day of Its
Session.
SOME INTERESTING CASES.
INTERESTING CASES.
Questions Affecting Land Titles, Min.
ing Rights, Life Insurance and
a States Power.

The United States Circuit Court of Ap-
peals began its session yesterday with
pretty good days work. It handed down
nine decisions, some of which are of more
than usual Importance.
Probably the most important, from
local point of view, was that affirming the
Judgment of the lower court in the case. of
Henry 6. Morris against A. G. Johnson
over portion of school land which the
State had selected in lieu of the sections
set apart for school purposes III the for
feited grant of the Southern Pacific be.
tween Tres Pinos and Huron.
Johnson had contended in his appeal,
first, that the act of September 90. 1890,
did not restore the forfeited lands to the
United States; second, that the forfeiture
did not enure to California; third, that
the act of February 28, 1891, amending Sec
tion 2275 of the Revised Statues, granting
lieu lands as indemnity for school sections
found TO be mineral did not apply to Cali
fornia; and fourth, that the regular
school sections in question had not been
finally adjudicated by the Land Depart
ment as being mineral in character.
In the grant OF July 81, 1866, to the At
lantic and Pacific Railroad, section 1S of
the act, authorizing the Southern Pacific
to connect with The Atlantic and Pacific.
made similar grant of land to the South.
ern Pacific, but required the latter road to
be completed by July 4, 1878. On this last
mentioned date the Southern Pacific had
builded its road as far as from San Jose to
Tres Pinos and from Huron to Goshen
and Mojave, but the portion between Tres
Pinos and Huron, 100 miles in length, was
not completed as required. The grant
along this portion was, therefore, forfeited
by the act of September, $780, and in the
forfeited land was included section 33,
township 3, range east, Mount Diablo
meridian.
Joaquin Vinagre applied to the Surveyor
General of the State for the purchase of
this section 33. 1t had been recommended
by the Surveyor-General to the registrar
of the land office and selected as lieu
school land. The land was sold to Vinagre,
who conveyed it to Morris. Johnson
claimed the land upon the railroads s sup
posed title, and Morris brought suit to re-
cover possession.
Judge Morrow, who wrote Yesterdays
opinion, held that the surveyors report,
classifying the regular school lands as
mineral, was conclusive; that the land in
question did belong to the State and that
Morris title was good.
Considering the big mining suit now on
trial in the United States Circuit Court
DciOIS JudSc Dedtly ldultiy. LHaJ OF GQe
Carson City Mining Company against the
North Star Mining. Company, ana the
claim of extra lateral rights made by the
defendant, the decision in the case of Aus
tin Walrath (appellant) VS.. The Champion
Mining Company (appellee). included
among yesterdays batch, has a timely in
terest.
This case was brilliant success for At
torney Curtis II. Lindley, who is now de-
Tending the North Star Company. 1t is
true that the two cases are not parallel,
but the decision, which, by the way, Judge
Ross wrote, is favorable so far as it goes
toward the claim of extra lateral rights.
Complainant Walrath and the Cham
pion Mining Company own adjoining
mines in Nevada City. The decree of the
lower court, which was in the Champion
-Company's favor, is considerably modified
by Judge Ross. His words were:
The opinion of the lower court, in so far as it
limits the extra latersl right of the complain
ant to follow the vein called in the record the
back or central vein in its downward course is
erroneous,
1t is conceded that whatever right the CON-
plainant has in or to the ledge in controversy
is derived from the act of May 10. 1879, en-
bodied in the Revised Statutes as section 1922.
Unless that ledge has its top or apex within
the lines of the surface of the location Of the
Providence claim the complainant has no ex-
ira lateral rights 10 that ledge at all. But that
IL does have its top within the surface lines is
an uncontroVerted 1act and was SO found and
adjudged by the court below.
The complainant, therefore, has the extra
lateral right conferred by the statute, which is
the right to follow the dip of the ledge in its
course downward outside of the vertical side
lines of the surface location of the Providence
claim wherever 1t goes until IL comes to the
vertical planes drawn downward through the
end lines of the location continued fndefi-
nitely in the one direction. Beyond those
points of intersection the extra lateral right
did not CO..
In no case can the extra lateral right of a
first locator in respect to a vein. lode or ledge,