The Ely miner. [volume] (Ely, Minn.) 1895-1986, 1904-01-15
SULLIVAN FORTY.
u, s. Court of Appeals Holds
Eaton and AssoCia es Owns Forty.

The United States court of appeals
has handed down Il decision in tn,
case Of the Midway company against
Frank w. Eaton. Lon Merritt an(
Il. H. Pagan Of Duluth, and Georg,
j. Lonstorf Of Milwaukee. the actor
involving the Sullivan forty in Section
30 case, in favor Of Eaton and his as
sociates. says the News-Tribune,
The case is similar to the one de
cided by the United States supreme
court in the original Section 30 case
except that the latter involved more
territory 1t is understood the Mid
way company will appeal to the
United States supreme court.
The Midway company is controlled
by A. NJ. Miller OF Dlluth and New
York. The Minnesota Iron company
which was also arrayed against Eaton
and associates for possession of the
Sullivan forty, withdrew from the
case before the decision by the United
State court Of appeals
The decision Of the United States
supreme court Jan. II. 1902, deter
mined the title to seven Of the eight
forties claimed by MC.srS. Eaton, Fa-
gan, Merritt and LonstOrf. The forty
involved in the more recent decision
known rs the sullivan forty" is
the particular parcel OF ground upon
which John O. Sullivan, who has been
employed by Eaton and his associates
to occupy the premises, has lived for
the past seventeen years The forty
is described as the northwest quarter
Of the southeast quarter of Section 3d.
1t is considered one of the most valu-
able of the eight forties that have be-
come known to fame.
Explorations on parts of Section 30
that lave been out Of litigation for
the past two years have disclosed 90
600, 600 tons Of the fine quality Of ore
! for which the Vermilion range is fa-
nous and which is worth Sl0,000,000
in the ground, says the Tribune. The
| Sullivan forty is one Of the most i'm
portant of the several parcels Of land
which have been involved in the
general controversy, which altogether
/ has covered nearly tW7nty years. The
territory containing the iron cannot
be opened up and the ore deposit &C
curately measured until Shaft is put
down and drifts are made But al
ready. with the work of diamond
drills, the property has been proved
TO be worth all that has been claimed
for it, and it is thought to be worth
Il vastly greater amount.
Many people who have not followed
the Section 30 case closely cannot I'M
derstand why there SHOULD be other.
decisions affecting the title to Sectio6
30 since the United States supreme
court disposed of it a couple of years
ago. But as already stated, only
seventeen Of the eight forties were
affected by that decision, The Sulli-
van forty affords the Midway COM
pany an opportunity to bring for the
second time the same issue before the
United States supreme court, for this
forty was not in the original case.
The reason that it was not included
at the time was that. the claimants
other than Eaton and his associates
were engaged in litigation among
themselves as to their respective
rights, and so this forty was left out
of the case involving the seven forties.
The Midway company was successful
in its litigation, and il was now up to
Eaton and his associates for final
contest to determine the ownership
Of the Sullivan forty. They were
known us the scrip claimants. They
failed TO secure from the Midway COM
pany any REIMBURSEMENT Of its claims
to the Sullivan forty after 1.-The deci-
court involving the seven forties. and
they brought an action to determine
their rights in the district court.
The action was removed to the
United States court and tried before
Judge William Lochren. Decree was
entered Dec. 8, 1902, in favor of Eaton
and the other claimants. The case
was tried upon the same proofs as the
first case. Appeal was at once taken
from Judge Lochren's decision to the
United States court Of appeals and it
is expected that it villas promptly be
carried to the United States supreme
court. The case stands upon the is
sues and proofs precisely as did the
original Section 80 case decided by
the United shakespeare court, with
the additional proof OF possession,
and differs from the first case only
that it relates to different forty and
another piece OF the same scrip, laid
at the same time, in the same manner
and by the same parties, and pursuant
to the same authority.