The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1900-04-10
RECENT MINING DECISIONS.

No right can be initiated on government
land which is in the actual possession OF
another by a forcible, fraudulent or clan
destlne entry thereon for the purpose OF
locating It a mining or other claim Ne
vada Sierra or Company vs.. Home OIL
Company ct al, % Fed. Rep o.. 50, 67s.
A complaint in an action to enforce a
mechanics lien on a mining claim, show
ing that the plaintiffs were employed by
and rendered services for the lessees OF the
owner of property. states no cause OF ac-
ton against the owner. Schweiger vs..
Mansfield ct al, 50 Pac. Rep tColo). S4S.
r r r
While II r. not necessary that a locator
should be the first discoverer Of mineral
upon the land. in order that a prior discov
cry by another shall irure 10 his beneft,
and give validity 10 his location. Il must
have been known to and adopted and
claimed by him. Nevada Sierra oil Com
pany W.. Home OH Company ct al, eS Fed.
Rep. GU. 81. 67S
A court viii appoint "A receiver to take
charge of public lands claimed by both
parties under the mining laws OF the Uni
work may be done thereon for the benefit
OF the party entitled thereto, where the
sonable ground for his claim to ownership
Nevada Sierra OH Company vs.. Home OIL
Company ct al. ss Fed. Rep a.. -, 573
r r
An owner OF "a mining claim. against
whom a Judgment has been rendered by
default in an action to enforce a mechan-
les lien for work done for her lessee.
whore there is an assignment OF error
Judgment, in entitled TO be heard on ap-
peal regardless OF errors In her proceed
ings TO open the default. Schweizer vs.,
Mansfield ct al. 80 Pac. Rep. tColb. S3.
=
Defendant the owner of an undivided
two-thirds interest In a mine. refused TO
permit plaintiff. who was his co-tensnt's
lessee. to enter into possession OF the
mine or 10 permit him TO work the mine
at a different level from where defen-
dant was working, and threatened 10 seat
ter plaintiffs brains II he entered the tun-
mel leading to the ore bodies then deyel-
oped. Held sufficient to support n ending
OF an custer Of plaintiff BY defendant.
Paul VS.. Cragnas. 50 Pac. Rep. tNev).
In prosecution for violation Of Laws
1927. .. gi5, making u unlawful for a cor
porntion 20 work through vertical SHAFT
where mining cages are used 70 greater
depth than 3oo feet, unless the cage shall
pc provided with an iron bonneted safety
cage. evidence that such devices or cages
would - dangerous Is inadmssible. since
the question whether such appliances were
the best or wlsest method Il FOR the iegis-
lnture to decide. State vs.. Anaconda Cop
per Mining Company, % Pae. Rep CMontJ.
In an action against the owner % an I'M
divided two-thirds interest in a mine tor
excluding lessee Of the other undivided
one-third interest therefrom. where % WAS
shown that piaintn was n practical miner,
ana that there was reasonable probability
THAT he would have mined sufficient ore
during the term ~ the lease 20 have yield
"a him "A profit % $4,000 had he been per-
rritted 90 work The mine - he proposed
and intcu-cd 20 do. a verdict Tor g. ~. -
was not excessive Paul -. IraEnAa, 20
Pac. Rep. (Sev), 81
where plaintiff vas lessee u an undl-
vided 0ne-thlrd interest IN a mine under
a lease from the owners OK Eat3 Interest.
and the defendant. who Wga the owner %
fhr remaining undivided twp-t hlrds In
farevt refused 20 permit him 20 autey Into
possession and work the mine. o. any part
thereof. rlainfia wa8 not confined to -
action Tor an accounting - tAF PROFITS
received 5y defendant during the term
~ she ease. fuf could maintain lu 1a-
tgan against defendant far damages. basel
an the ioss az prodts that gia3ntin would
have made bat for The custer. F4ll vs.
grarraa, 20 f.ac Rep tNeVb. 81