Gh8uno-pu, 91 U. S. 380; ,McStay v· .Fri.edman, 92U. S. 723; Hoac1kJJl. v. San FTmici8co,,94 U. S. 4. ' ' , The conveyance by a patent of a vein or lode \Vhose top or apex: is within the limits ()f a claim, and whose apex is cut by the end lines of t\1e claim, is a,S and full as the conveyance of the surfacEil of tpe claim or orany piece,: or parcel of agricultural land. The grant is, of this vein oJ; lode thro:qghout its entire depth, extended downward vertically; although it mayso.far depart from a perpendicular in its course downward as ,to exte;nd. outside the vertical side lines. of the surface)Qpation. Rey. St. u.s.l,2322. As far as this l<;lde or vein.is is in thj'lnature of the conveyance of a mine which may be carved out of any portion oflanq embracing the same. If there is any dia,pute as ,to question of boundaries, this is a question of fact. If t,here il:) any dispute as to whether any portion of land. is that canyeyed,it a questiol'i of fact. ' ,I,r there is apy dispute as to whether a lode, we consult mene;perienced in giveoparcel of 1and is a vein t;Ilining,and determine the question as a fact,and not as a,m.a,tter oflaw. If we ,wish to learn what is a "vein," "lode," or "ledge" containing precious metals, we must take the Qrdimary signification of these words as used by' p,ractical to thEil calling of mining. Should we hav.e t9, gP to scientific men for a definition of these words, this wopld oot make it a question,oflaw. Hit is said that the object is to ascertain 'in' w.hatsense the ,term was in the act of congrlll:>S, ,and therefore a legal, guesti9n to be determined. py a federal question, theabswer is that, if this should be maintained, then, whenever a party shollld· allege that to determine the meanil1g of any term, s'llcnas an acre <;lfland, ,or a section ,of land, as use\l in an act pf, 9:\l.el>tion be,presented, ,This ?ardly be contended for. Fll1ding, as I do, that no federal IS presented i'[l,this case, this CQ.Qse to the state court from which it cameishereb'y eustained; and it ]a s,o ordered. . '
LARGEYtl,'Er..qE BIRD MIN. Co., timlted.
(Circu-tt Court, D. MOntana. February'S, 1892.)
Ali Law.. Action by,PatrtckA.Lal'gey against the BIue Bil'd Mining Company, Limited. Heard on demurrer to the complaint. Demurrer sustained. F. T. lJIcBride and J.'oo?e:d4 Wallace, for plllint.iff. F01'bis. & F01'bls, for defendant.
KNOwLES, District J ridge. The property described in. the in this case is the same as that described in the case of Blue Bird MtninrJ Ob. v. Largey, 49 Fed: Rep. 289,:whicli, hav.ing been removed from the district court of Silver back to said state court, for the Bow county, Mont., reason that no was in:volved In. dt;ltermining the same. Precisely the same points, as il;lVolyingfeder,,1 which were presented in
'.. ' ! -, \. ' , .
CENTRAL NAT. BANK: fl. HAZARD.
'hat ease are presented in this. The decision in that case, thllD, as to this question settles this. The opinion in that case discusses alI the questions presented in this. The view of the court, 88 expressed in. tl)lt case, is that no fedel'al question was presented under the facts alleged. The defendant demurred to,the complaint upon the ground that this court had no diction of the case presented. The demurrer is sustained, and the cause ia dismissed. at plaintiff's cost.
CENTRAL NAT. BANK: OJ' BOSTON tI. HAZARD e£
(Oircu(t Oourt, N. D. New Yor1c. February 26, 1892.)
STATB AND FEDERAL
tb.eparties thereto, in a suit in which tbe federal court. has iirst acquired jurisdiO' tion of the controversy and the reB. ,
:A. state court has no authority to enjoin the proceedings of a federal court. or of
When a federal court has ordered the sale of a railroad, and its officer has advertisedthe same for sale, that \lourt has complete dominion thereof, so as to exclude all interference by a state court.
A proceeding in a state court to set aside a former decree thereof for fraud In ita procurement is an original suit, and does no$ revive the dominion exercised in the former. suit over the res, so as to exclude the jurisdiction of a federal court. which has attached in the mean time. ' The. dominion of a court over a railroad sold by its decree entirely ceases upon the oonveyance thereof to the, purchasers. ' .
CoURTS....J"URISDICTION IN REIll-8ALE 011' PROPERTY.
. In Equity. Suit by the Central National Bank of Boston, in its own behalf and. in behalf of all other certificate holders, against Rowland N.o Hazard, William Foster, Jr., and others, to declare and enforce the lien of ceJ'tain receiver's certificates against the Lebanon Springs RaUroo'd Company. Heard on petition fOral! order directing an officer of the court. to proceed with a sale of the railrolj'd property J in accordance a decree heretofore entered. . Granted. Esek Cowen, for petitioner. E. W. Paige; for defendants.
WALLACE, Circuit Judge. The petitioner asks the court to set in motion one of its officers pro hac vice, who, by a decree made on the 24th day of March, 1887, (30 Fed. Rep. 484,) was directed to seU at public auction, after giving due notice of the time and place of sale, according law and the practice of this court, certain real and personal property. consi\'lting ofthe railroad, rolling stock, etc., which formerly belonged to the Lebanon Springs Railroad Company. The petitioner invokes the aCtion of the court because a decree has been made by the supreme court of the state of New York in suit brought subsequent to the rendition of the decree of this court, ,which, among other things, perpetually en'; joins and restrains the parties in this suit from proceeding with the sale of the property under the decree of this court.. The petitioner was nota