Eilers v. Boatmen
Cases that cite this one
16 later published cases cite this decision.
- Atherley v. Bullion Monarch Uranium Company (Utah 1959)
- McIntosh v. Price (9th Cir. 1903)
- Blake v. Cavins (N.M. 1919)
- Steinfeld v. Zeckendorf (Ariz. 1914)
- McFarland v. Alaska Perseverance Mining Co. (United States District Court for the District of Alaska 1907)
- Biglow v. Conradt (United States District Court for the District of Alaska 1906)
- Redden v. Harlan (United States District Court for the District of Alaska 1905)
- Bulette v. Dodge (United States District Court for the District of Alaska 1905)
- Price v. McIntosh (United States District Court for the District of Alaska 1901)
- Bismark Mountain Gold Mining Co. v. North Sunbeam Gold Co. (Idaho 1908)
- Telluride Power Transmission Co. v. Rio Grande Western Railway Co. (Supreme Court of the United States 1900)
- Naeglin v. De Cordoba (Supreme Court of the United States 1898)
- Harrison v. Perea (Supreme Court of the United States 1897)
- Bear Lake & River Water Works & Irrigation Co. v. Garland (Supreme Court of the United States 1896)
- San Pedro & Cañon Del Agua Co. v. United States (Supreme Court of the United States 1892)
- Idaho & Oregon Land Improvement Co. v. Bradbury (Supreme Court of the United States 1889)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
delivered the opinion of the court.
This, like Chambers v. Harrington, ante, 350, is an appeal from the decree of the Supreme Court of Utah in a contest for a mine carried on under § 2326 of the Revised Statutes.
The appellant does not deny the prmrity of location, or the .continuous work on the Nabob — the claim of the appellee— but insists that the notice and description of the claim of the defendants were not sufficient to apprise other prospectors of its precise location.
This, in the first place, is matter of' fact, and was found by the court below against appellant, for we think that the following language, though called by the judge a conclusion of law, is really a finding of facts, namely:
“ 1. That the notice of the location of the Nabob mining claim contained a sufficient description by reference to natural *357 objects and permanent and well-known monuments to identify the same.
“ 2. That said Nabob claim was so marked on the ground that its boundaries could be readily placed.”
If, however, we revert to the specific findings of fact so named in the record, we think the second and fourth findings, which give a more minute description of the courses, distances, natural objects, and stakes, justify the two conclusions above recited.
A point is made by appellant that the Flagstaff Mining Company was in possession of the lode at the time the Nabob claim was located.
We do not see how this would improve the subsequent location of appellant.
But it- is sufficient to say that no such finding is made by the court in regard to the Flagstaff claim.
By chapter 80 of the acts of Congress, approved April 7, 1874,18 Stat. 27, this court is required to accept the findings of fact made by the Supreme Courts of the Territories as true on appeal to this court. See Stringfellow v. Cain, 99 U. S. 610; Hecht v. Boughton, 105 U. S. 235.
In this case the Supreme Court in its judgment affirms the findings of the District Court. As we think the judgment of the Supreme Court of Utah was right on the facts so found, there is nothing left but to
Affirm the judgment, and it is so ordered.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.