Tonopah daily bonanza. [volume] (Tonopah, Nev.) 1906-1929, 1915-04-30

right, II the primary vein, or discoy-
cry vein. has its extralateral right
extending northerly2 Counsel for
The Butler Company holds that, w.
der the two-yein theory OF this case,
mo extralateral right TO the south
can be exercised, because the extra.
lateral right predicated on the dis
coyery vein flows to the north. Lind
ton is fully and conclusiyely an
swered by counsel for the West End
tDickson's argument. IA ct seq; All
ing's argument, 100 CT seq.)
Is the West End Claim entitled TO
any extralateral rights, its west end
line being a broken line? The rule
probably is that for extralateral
rights 10 flow from a mining claim,
il must have unDroken and parallel
end-lines, If the vein crosses the end
lines; or il must have unbroken and
parallel side-lines if the vein crosses
ais side-lines. In this case the vein
passes through the east end-line.
which is unbroken, and passes out
through the north side-line, having
its length in the claim along and
gradually approaching the side-line,
which eliminates the side-line as a
bounding line from which a limiting
vertical plane might be dropped.
The end-line being unquestionably
I The line from which the easterly lin
ting plane should be dropped and
being unbroken, and the opposite
limiting plane being necessarily par
allel to it and fixed by the vein-cross-
ing point on the side-line. it seems
as though practically the west end
line has nothing to do with any ex-
tralateral right that may flow from
the claim However. the locaror's
with the government includes four
covenants on the part of the loca-
tor. that he make a discovery OF
mineral in place, that he give notice
of his claim, that he define his boun-
daries. and that his boundary lines
conform to the requirements of the
Las that is, they must be parallel
and unbroken. If he observes these,
the government not only gives him
the land enclosed in his lines but
the extralateral right. A strict ap.
| plicatiOn of this idea would bar the
West End Claim from any extra
I lateral right; but the law as applied
/ by the courts is not so strict. (Sha-
mel on Mining Law, 21O; Lindley
on Mines, Section sci, as controlled
by reasoning in Section 5S2; Dick
sons argument, 81 ct seq) Treating
a part of the westerly end-line as
converglng. it has no application TO
the present facts of the case, as it
passes west of all ore-bodies in dis
pute.
If the conclusion reached herein
seems revolutionary, that from the
apex or apices of one vein extra
lateral rights flow downward across
both of its side-lines attention
should be given to the words- Ct for
mer Chief Justice Beatty of Nevada
I'VE are willing TO admit that
; cases may arise to which 1t will be
difficult TO apply the law; but this
only proves that such cases escaped
the foresight of Congress. or, tina
although they foresaw the possibilit,
> of such cases occurring. they consid
/, cred the possibility so remote as MOI
to AFFORD a reason for departing from
, the simplicity of the plan they chose
to adopt"
1t is easy to realize that the con
dition described in this opinion II
one that escaped the foresight o
, congress and is also exceedingly he
! mote from the simplicity of the plai
/ they chose to adopt; yet the Law
| must be applied to it, the law il
\ which congress used the expression
1 exclusive right of possession anC
, enjoyment of all veins, lodes
: and lodges throughout their entirt
+ depth, the top or apex of which lisi
: inside of such surface lines extended
> downward vertically. although suci
! veins, lodes or lodges may so far de
! part from the perpendicular in theil
course downward as to extend out
side the vertical side-lines
! Note the plural of the word Side
4 lines"
/ This branch of the case is decided
+ in favor of the defendant corpora
. ton. That is to say the West EnJ
:. Consolidated Mining Company is th'
I owner of the ore bodies in dispute.
/. Submitted March 81. 1915.
c Decided April 80, 1915
= H. ~, 293-l4.
1881 F2.