The daily star-mirror. (Moscow, Idaho) 1911-1939, 1918-10-15
RENDERS DECISION
IN MINING CASE
JUDGE STEELE DECIDES CASE
OF GREAT IMPORTANCE TO
THE MINING INTERESTS

Judge Steele, of Moscow, today rem
dered an opinion in the case of Mary A.
Jorgenson and the Spokane & Eastern
Trust Company VS.. the Seattle Mica
Company and others
The judge holds in favor of the plain
tiffs in all points and gives to them COM
plete title to the mine
The mica from this mine has been
tested by the United States government
and it is found to be the most valuable
in the world. 1t rivals the famous mica
from India and Korea. The claim was
located in 1883 and a patent thereafter
issued to the plaintiffs Subsequently
the same tract of land was clear-listed by
the government to the state of Idaho
at is claimed also by the defendant
that because the government issued this
patent i'll accordance with the rules which
patent unsurveyed mining claims, there
fore this is such a finding and such a
decision which will prevent the courts
from finding that the Last Chance min
ing claim, which is now in dispute, is
the same land as that transferred in the
patent.
1t is very evident to the court, that
when the government came to the con-
c1usion from the facts before it. that this
was unappropriated public domain that
the government overlooked its own rec
ords. The claim had been surveyed,
which was thereby segregated from the
public domain, because it had been filed
upon as the Last Chance mine prior to
that time. The filing of mining claim,
and the steps which are followed by the
government in proceeding to push it to
patent, segregate it from the public dos
main @f-+i m
In clear-l listing this land, it was stated
that it was only listing any unappro-
priated government land, and yet the
evidence shows, without controversy,
that this mining claim was appropriated
prior to this clearlisting. !
One who files mining claim, acquires
a vested interest in the claim. which
cannot be taken away from him by !
others. We are all familiar with. the
rule and of what the different statutes |
provide with reference tQ contracts dis
turbing vested rights, and it is not fieces-
sary to cite authorities upon this point
Judge Dietrich in deciding the case in
mine, which is in this same locality, held |
that it could not be questioned but what
the Moscovite mine was claim of
can't get away from the conclusion that
the government and everyone else must
have beer held to have known that the
Last Chance mining claim was known to
be mineral and that it was so known
when the government attempted to clear
list the land to the state as non-mineral,
public lands. To hold
anything else would be to hold that the
can disturb vested rights by
giving the land to someone else. Such
IS not the policy upon which the gov
eminent nor upon wffch tbs courts pro-
ceed. ---~ H~ss'E
Judge DIETRICH, in his deeisii5h. says! /
'Tt IS familiar law that valid location
.onfers upon the locator and his gran
tees or successors in interest, a vested
interest. It is sometimes referred to
IS a qualified title, but whatever it may
,e called. it Is a vested interest, and cam
,ot be divested without due process of
aw." --sr !''st = .r-s -,-e.-@i--..
Therefore the government cannot di--I
1est one who has a valid mining location
# his interest in the mining claim, iii an
* parte proceeding, to which the locator s
If the f1iif1ing claim is not party.
The court compliments a counsel upon
heir research. and upon their presenta-
ion Of this case. but it feels bound to
ONE to the conclusion that the state of
daho never acquired any interest to this Z
inning claim through the c1earlisting
f the lands to the state, and that these
efendants are in no better position than
he state. The state cannot give any I
etter title than the state itself had and d
18th the views and conclusions at which Q
have arrived and heretofore stated in k
lis opinion, feel that counsel for plain a
ifs can draw a proper decree, award "
lg this land to the plaintiffs, and their r.
terests appear in the evidence, and the h
,unsel for plaintiffs will prepare proper W
ndings of fact, conclusions of law and Sc
scree for my signature, in accordance
ith the conclusions herein reached. F
Judge J. H. Forney appeared as coun
! for the plaintiffs. The defendants
ere represented by Suppiger & Ogden,
Moccow and r r Wheeler of d