The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1898-02-16
BUTTE News.
THROWN OUT OF COURT
Two Cases That Knowles Says
Aren't Properly Before Him.
HE SUSTAINS A DEMURRER
The Suits of the B. and NJ. Against the
M. P. Held to Have No Earthly
Business in the United
States Courts.

fudge Knowles handed down deci-
sion in the United States court yester-
day. which, if sustained by the higher
federal courts will have the effect OF
putting an end TO the bringing of min
ing suits in the United States courts
thereafter except in a few rare instances
in which the residence of the parties To
The suit make the jurisdiction or the
question of crossing an end and side
line is involved. The decision settles
two Of the big mining cases pending,
SO far as the United States court is
concerned, at least for some time. They
were the two cases i'm one of which the
Boston 4 Montana company asked the
court for an injunction 10 prevent the
NJ O. 2. company from extracting ore
from under the Johnstown lode claim,
and in the other of which the b. x NJ.
company asked $4,000 damages from
the NJ. o. p. company for having ex-
tracted ore from under the Johnstown
claim. Judge Knowles threw the cases
out of court by sustaining the demur-
rer of the defendant, setting up ques-
ton of jurisdiction.
The complainant, the b. & NJ. COM
pany, brought suit against the NJ. Q. Z.
company as stated, praying for an IN
junction 10 prevent Tie idiL1I lHIdlls
from mining under the Johnston claim,
and also alleged that the determination
of the case involved a construction OF
title 49, chapter of the revised statutes
of the United States. The defendant
demurred to the complaint, claiming
the right to mine under the Johnstown
claim by reason of its rights in the sui
livan lode claim. and contending that
no question would rise in the trial of
the cause in which construction OF
the United States statues were IN
yolved, hence the court had no 1urisdic-
ton. The demurrer was argued last
week and Judge Knowles rendered his
decision orally yesterday. In passing
on the questions involved he said:
When the government of the United
States has parted with its title, by pat
ent, TO a piece of land, that land then
becomes a part of the general mass or
property of the community or the state
where the property exists, and the
rights of the parties depend upon the
grant then and not upon the construc-
ton of any law. OF course there are
causes in which there would be "A con-
struction of the law as to the fact OF
the grant but in a case of this kind
where there is no longer any rule for
the construction of the law, the rights
are all concentrated in the grant,
Now in this case it is said the claim
was located without end lines, but II
does not say il was patented Withou
end lines. There Were no extra latera
rights unless there were parallel enc
lines and the question as to whether
there were parallel end lines or mol
must be determined by the patent. The
complaint states that the vein crosses
both side lines and as the United States
supreme court has decided that there
We're no extra lateral rights under sucr
circumstances, consequently there Is
no federal question involved. Nor il
looking at the question as To what tn,
rights of the parties would be under
the patent, the complaint ought Il
state what were the facts about tn,
patent and how il was located. But tn,
complaint does not state what the de
scription was in the patent, and ii doe
not say the patent was in accordance
with the location.
I'm the case of Tyler VS.. Last Chance
the supreme court of the United State
has decided that the patent is the con
trolling matter and that YOU cannot e.
back of the patent so | don't thinl
that part of the complaint raises an,
vital question. The demurrer will b
sustained"
The complainant was given until Eel
"a 10 file a supplemental bill of com
plant or bill of exceptions.
Attorney j. f. Forbis, who represent
the Il. & NJ company, is not Statistic
with Judge Knowles decision and wi
appeal the case.
By consent of counsel in the case @
p j. McAndrews against the receiver
of the Oregon Short Line, the defend
ants were given an extension of tim
until next Saturday to answer.