The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1898-05-24
MADE THEM REJOICE
Plaintiffs Pleased With the De-
cision in the Niagara Case.
WAS LONG IN LITIGATION
James w. and w. p. Forbis and NJ,
Genzberger Were the Plaintifs-w.
A. and Joseph X. Clark Were
b Defendants.

There was very great rejoicing last
evening among the plaintiffs in the cele-
brated Niagara-B Black Rock case and
their friends, for word was received
from Washington that the supreme
court Of the United States. to which the
case had been appealed. had rendered a
verdict in their favor.
This very celebrated case was tried in
the district court of Silver Bow county
in the summer of 1898. decision being
rendered for the plaintiffs on July 26
of that year. The plaintiffs in the case
are the owners of the Niagara mining
claim, in the northwestern part of the
city. The Black Rock adjoins il. The
Niagara people claimed that the Black
Rock people were taking ore which be-
longed to them. The owners of the
Niagara are James w. Forbis. w. p.
Forhis and M. Genzberger. At least they
own two-thirds of 1t, the other third be-
ing owned by w. A. Clark, who was
not, however, a party to the bringing of
the suit. The defendant owners of the
Black Rock are w. A. Clark and Jo-
seph X. Clark. BY the Judgment rem
dered July 26, 1898, the plaintiffs were
given a judgment of $27, PAP. "a and costs
of s234.50.
The defendants appealed the case. The
plaintiffs moved before the supreme
court of the United States To dismiss
the case on the ground that no federal
question was involved. This was ar
gued before the supreme our at Wash
ington by James w. Forbis for the
plaintiffs and Governor r. b.. Smith for
the defendants. Yesterday Mr.. Forbis
received this telegram:
Judgment in case of Forbis vs.. Clark
affirmed. with costs"
1t is not yet known here whether the
decision rendered at Washington is that
no federal question is involved or
whether it decides the matter of a di-
vided apex and end and side lines and
lateral rights. If the latter is the case,
then the last of the disputed mining
points Is settled and the decision will
settle all the great mining cases now
pending except, perhaps, as to matters
of fact.
The Niagara-Black Rock case in
volved a contention between two lateral
co-terminal lode claims-the Niagara
and Black Rock. The vein entered the
west end line of the Black Rock, pur-
sued an easterly trend. crossing through
the Common side and then through the
east end line of the Niagara, thus pre-
senting a case where the vein on it's
course crossed an end and side line of
tdCh III Inc ODitllOn SlNtH 10 an
earnest and forcible plea for the pres
ervation of the extra lateral right in
cases where, through honest mistake,
one of the conditions contemplated in the
case of ideal locations is not fulfilled to
the letter. The doctrine commended for
in thiSc case constructs a plane with ref
erence to a boundary crossed by the
lode, lawfully designated by the loca-
tor as an end line. 1t stops
the pursuit of the vein on it's
strike. which result il also accomplish
cd by the crossed line. 1t gives TO the
locator as much of the lode i'm depth
as he has within his surface lines. 1t
takes away nothing that could Do law
fully appropriated by any one else. If
the extreme doctrine Is to prevent hat
no extra lateral right is to be allowed
where a vein crosses an end and a side
line, the Niagara's rights are cut off by
a plane drawn through its south side
line. This would give to the Black
Rock an underground segment of this
vein underlying its surface for its full
length. with only a small portion of
the apex. In other words. IL holds more
of the vein underneath within it's own
boundaries than it has everything apex.
But it's pursuit of the vein on its
downward course is cut off by the plane
drawn through its south side lines. The
remainder of the vein lying south of
such vertical plane cannot be thereafter
appropriated by any one under the min
ing laws because there is no apex upo
which to predicate such a location.
Either the Niagara or the Black Rock,
had they been able to obtain sufficient
knowledge of the position and course of
the vein. might have taken the full
length and depth. Blu as they were
mistaken i'm their surmises as to the
course of the vein and so made their
locations that it crossed the Common side
boundary. one receives practically Moth
ing and the other receives something
which the law did not intend he should
have, and fails TO receive all of the vein
underlying his apex. which the law ron
templated that he should take. Accord
ing to the theory of Judge Dewitt, each
locator receives a segment of the vein
throughout It's depth equal in length to
the apex within his surface boundaries,
and his Is the point contended for by
the plaintiffs and which has apparently
been affirmed by the court at Washing
ton. There Is a complete appropriation
Of the vein for the entire length and
depth.