Elk City mining news. (Elk City, Idaho) 1903-1913, 1904-06-25
Important. Legal Decisions.
Continued from first page.

of the Bunker Hill claim, or of the
Bunker Hill lode as thus described, and
that each of them. claim an estate or
interest therein adverse to the Bunker
Hill company, which the latter alleges
to be false and groundless and without
any right whatever, and cloud upon
it's title; that the value of that part of
the Bunker Hill lode situated ives terly
of its side line, and between vertical
planes drawn downward through its end
lines, exceeds the sum of $500, 900, ex-
elusive of interest and cost. The prayer
Of the bill is, among other things, that
the defendants, and each of them, be
required to set forth the nature of their
respective claims, and for decree adj
Judging the alleged title of the COM
plainant to be good and valid, and that
defendants have no interest in or to the
Bunker Hill claim or lode as described
IN the bill.
The defendants interposed demurrer
to the bill on the grounds that it did not
make or state such case as doth or
ought to entitle the complainant to any
such discovery or relief as is thereby
sought or prayed for. The demurrer
being overruled, each of the defendants
lied separate and similar answer, and
also cross-bill, differing in that each
alleged ownership in the respective de-
PENDANTS of seperate and distinct mining
,laims. Each of the answers admits
that the complainant owns the surface
If the Bunker Hill claim, and the vein
)r lode within its boundaries, but denies
hat the course of the vein is northerly
md southerly, or that it crosses the al
eyed side line thereof, or that in its
downward course it passes westerly
beyond verticle plain drawn through
he west side line of the Bunker Hill
claim, or that the complainant company
is the owner of any part of the lode sit
uated west of its alleged west side line
The cross-bill alleged ownership, re-
spectively, in the Last Chance company
Of the Last Chance mining claim; in the
Shoshone company of the Shoshone and
Summit mining claims; and in the EN-
pire company of sixteen other mining
claims, respectively named and describ-
ed, all of which, with the outcrop of the
vein or lode therein, it's course and dip,
and its conflict with the extra lateral
right claimed by the Bunker Hill COM
pany, are described in the respective
cross-bills, They also allege that the
vein or lode described in the Bunker
Hill claim does not cross its end lines as
now claimed, but crosses its original end
lines, and that the Bunker Hill cam
oany's right to follow its vein or lode
downward is between the parallel verti-
cal planes drawn through it's located
end lines; that the course of the vein or
lode, instead of being northerly and
southerly, is north about 81 degrees
west, and that to follow it westerly, as
claims the right to do,
would be following it more along its
course or strike than upon it's true dip.
The prayer of the cross-bill was to the
effect that the Bunker Hill company be
required to set forth any and every ad-
verse interest, claim, or demand which
it had to the claims, veins, or lodes de-
scribed in the cross-bills, whether the
same be claimed by the Bunker Hill
company by virtue of its ownership of
the Bunker Hill claim and of the lode
apexing therein, Or by virtue of its
ownership of any other claim, vein, or
or lode, and that such adverse claim,
or demand be decreed null and
void as against the cross-complainants
and that their respective titles thereto
be quoted.
To each of the cross-bills the Bunker
Hill company demurred on the ground
that it presented more matter of de-
Tense, and that the mining claims therein
described were not included or embraced
by the original bill of complaint. The
demurrers to the cross-bills were sus-
tanned by the court below.
We think the ruling of the court below
upon all of the demurrers was right.
Two objections are made to the bill.
One is that it contains no allegation
the general course of the
vein beyond the limits of the Bunker
Hill claim; and the other, that the bill
does not show that the complainant is
the legal owner and in the exclusi We
of the ore bodies in contro-
versy.
In respect to the first objection, it is
not perceived that there is any necessity
for an averment in such bill concern