The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1899-08-15

inadvertently.-Whil one who willfully
and Intentionally takes ore from the mine
OF another is not entitled to deduction
from the value of same for the labor he
has expended in its extraction. etc, yet
where the taking is inadVertcnt. and I'M
der an honest mistake as to the owner
ship of the land, only the value of the
ore in it's original place can he recovered.
-Durant Mining company vs.. Percy Con-
solidated Mining company Cl3 Federal Re-
porter, 1863: circuit court Of appeals of the
United States.
Sale of smelling works not set aside on
account of small price.-Thc engineer in
charge of the construction of a smelling
plant testified that it had cost So, 600; an
expert testified that 1t could be duplicated
for So, 900. In addition to the original cost
$50, 900 had been expended on improve
ments, but a part of the buildings and
machinery were in bad repair and the
cost of materials and fall in the price Of
product made the plant unprotitable. The
court held that purchasers of the plant
at $500 had paid full value for same
Patterson VS.. Portland Smelling and Re-
fining Works (56 Pacific Reporter 40Sl;
supreme court of Oregon.
Rights of directors who are creditors
Directors to whom corporation is in
debted may purchase the property of the
company when it is sold, for the purpose
of paying its debts. Where stockholders
confer on the directors the power of dis
posing of its property, the directors may
delegate the Performance of purely min
isterial duties connected with the sale to
the president and secretary, if the discre-
tionary matters are reserved under the
control of the directors. Where such
property Is so sold and purchased, the
stockholders cannot insist that cash he
paid. but the purchase money may be
credited on the Observation-Disclosures
vs. Portland Smelling and Refining
Works (56 Pacific Reporter, 400; supreme
court of Oregon.
Location and acquisition of claims
Where the original discovery of a vein
on which a mining location is based is
included within the surface boundaries of
a junior location, which goes to patent
without protest from the owners of the
prior location. but before such patent
new discovery has been made on the
prior location without the boundaries of
the junior location as patented, and with
in the surface boundaries Of the prior To-
cation as originally located, and develop
ment work is begun and prosecuted in
good faith by the owners of the prior To-
cation. their claim is valid and holds as
Of the junior location, Notwithstanding
the loss of the original discovery-Siver
City Gold and Silver Mining company VS..
Lowry t57 Pacific Reporter, IL; supreme
court of Utah.
Description of conveyance of mining
property.--In the first part of deed there
were a bargain. sale and conveyance of
the right to enter upon the land for min
ing PURPOSES only. and to prospect and
mine the same. Then followed provi-
sion that the prospecting and mining
should be done with rs little damage as
possible. 1t was then provided that for
the purposes aforesaid a right of way
was granted across the land. which was
then described; and following the deScrip-
ton without break or punctuation, were
the words together with the &lines of
gold therein contained" The court held
that the last quoted clause was part
of the description, ana not a grant Of-the
mines. The deed also conveyed the right
to prospect and mine the gold "if grantee
should discover any in quartz suitable
for mining" This was held not to be a
condition subsequent Also that this was
not mere license rcvocable al the will
of the grantor 1t also extended to sub
sequent grantees, and the mere failure OF
the first grantee to exercise them did not
eXtinguish the right to do so under the
deed. And no presumption of abandon
ment could arise from the fact that SINH
lar rights were exercised by the grantor
and his subsequent grantees. w oodside
VS.. Ciceroni (93 Federal Reporter, u: cir
cult court of appeals of the United States.
A temporary Injunction against the re-
moval Of ore from the mining land of a
complainant will not be dissolved because
of defendants solvency.-Mabel Mining
company VS.. Pearson Coal and Iron COM
pany, % SO. Rep. tAla), 754.
Where a fire is raging in the middle of
mine, while an employe is below the
fire, it is the mine owners duty to tele-
graph to IA distant city and hire a special
train to obtain appliances with which to
eXtingush the fire. if such is the only
means of saving the employees life as the
rule of diligence, when life is at stake re-
quireS the doing of everything that gives
reasonable promise of its preservation, re-
CARELESS of difficulties and eXpense.-Bes-
semer Land and Improvement company
VS.. Campbell, 25 So. Rep. (AIa), 1893.
fire originated in the middle of a mine
and volumes of smoke arose from the air
shaft. short time thereafter men pass
ed up slope parallel with the air shaft
without much difficulty with smoke until
they reached point opposite the fire.
There were no appliances at hand for
eXtinguishng the fire by water. but they
could have been obtained in a few DAYS
by telegraphing. one at the bottom of
the mine, 400 feet below the fire could
have lived several days while the fire
was raging. if it had originated in the
air shaft and had quickly penetrated to the
slope, and the air shaft was large enough
to carry the smoke and gases a $ ranidlV
as they We're generated The mine SUI
perintendent smOthered the fire by seal
ing up the air shaft and slope, and an
employe who was below the fire was suf-
located. Held, a question for the Jury
whether the superintendent was guilty of
negligence jstifying a recovery.
mer Land and Improvement company
VS.. Campbell, % SO. Rep. (Ala), 1893.
BUTTE MENTION.