Santa Fe new Mexican. [volume] (Santa Fe, N.M.) 1898-1951, 1900-03-01
Late Mining Decisions.

In an action for injuries received
while employed in a mine, by the fall
ing of it's roof, evidence that such roof
was supported by a post; that such sup
port was sufficient for the purpose, and
made a reasonably safe place for the
men to work; that is was such as was
usually employed in all w~ell-regulated
mines: that it vas impossible to abso-
lutely guard against such accidents,
which were among the risks of the bus
iness--is sufficient to disprove negli
gence on the part of the operator of the
mine. under an allegation that it had
been negligent in falling to properly
scaffold that portion of the mine.-Choc-
taw, Oklahoma & Gulf Railway Com
pany VS.. Nicholas (53 Southwestern Re-
porter, 475); Supreme Court, Indian Ter
ritory.
The laws of Illinois regulating coal
mining, requiring mine owners to keep
on hand a supply of timbers to enable
them to properly secure the workings
for their wv safety do not relieve the
owners Of all responsibility for the con-
dition Of the roofs of the mine, nor SUI
persede the requirements Of the COM
mon law that the employer shall fur
nish the employee a reasonably safe
place to work, as applied to a driver Of
cars over tracks in a mine entry, who
has nothing to do with the propping Of
the roofs, and especially where the
min owner has been notified of the
unsafe condition of the roof Of the
entry, and had assumed to repair it.
The driver of loaded coal cars in q
mine, drawn by a mule. cannot. be held
guilty Of negligence as a matter of law,
In attempting to climb over and in front
of a moving car; there being no evil
dence as to the speed of such cars
Consolidated Coal Company VS.. Bo-
kamp GA Northeastern Reporter, 81;
Supreme Court Of Illinois.
The rights Of a foreign corporation to
engage in business in another state de-
ponds upon the comfy of that state,
and this comfy is again limited by the
public policy of the state, which may be
inferred from it's general attitude with
regard to such corporations, or may be
positively declared by statute. WILL
Jams VS.. Gold Hill Mining Co. ct AL,
90 Fed. Rep. (U. 81 asa.
The decisions Of the supreme court Of
California holding that Judgment cred
itors Of a mining corporation may
question the validity Of a mortgage
given by the corporation on the ground
that 1t was not ratified by the stock
holders, as required by the state stat,
ute, do not relate to any question Of
commercial or general law, but are To-
cal in their effect, and are binding N
the federal court. Williams vs.. Coll
Hill Min. Co, ct al. SO Fed Rep. GI. 81
454.
The state OF California having de-
clared its public policy by It's consti:u-
ton (Article 70, Par. 15), which pro-
vides that "No corporation organized
outside the limits Of the state shall be
allowed to transact business in this
state under more favorable conditions
than are prescribed by law to similar
corporations organized under the laws
of this state" and having provided by
statute est. 1880, p. 1919, applicable by
its terms to all mining corporations,
that 1T shall be not be lawful for the
directors of any mining corporations to
sell, lease, mortgage or otherwise dis
pose of the whole or any part of the
mining ground owned or held by the
corporation unless such act
be ratified by the holders Of at least
two-thirds Of the capital stock Of such
corporation" and prescribed the man.
ner in which such ratification must be
shown, a corporation Of another state,
holding mining ground in California, is
governed as to its conveyance or in
cumberance by such statute, and a
mortgage thereon, not ratified by its
stockholders in the n prescribed,
is void. Williams vs.. Gold Hill Min.
Co. ct al, 96 Fed. Rep. u. s.. 454.--Los
Angeles M. and M. Journal.