Upton v. Santa Rita Mining Co.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 1 district · 17 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““We believe that the true rule on the subject is succinctly stated in Altoona Co. v. Integral Co., 114 Cal. 100 , where it is said that ‘working for the statutory period before the adverse right exists is equivalent to a location under the Act of Congress’ and in Belk v. Meagher, 104 U. S. 279, 287 , where it is declared to be the ‘equivalent of a valid location’. In other words a party who has done such work occupies the status and possesses the rights of a locator, no more and no less. As in the case of a holder of a valid location he has good title as against all but the government so long as he does the annual labor. As is said by Judge Hallett in Harris v. Equator Company, 8 Fed. 863 : ‘A presumption is indulged that the location was regularly made in the first place and the party is allowed to remain so long as he shall comply with the conditions on which he holds the estate.’ When such party comes to apply for patent, his occupancy must be proven under certain regulations of the department (2 Lindley 1714) and when so proved, if there be no adverse claimant, they are sufficient as the statute says ‘to establish a right to a patent’. But in this he stands on the same basis as the holder of a location whose application is uncontested. The holder of such a possession no less than the holder of a location must possess the necessary qualifications as to citizenship. Anthony v. Jillson, 83 Cal. 296 . He must prove, as well as the locator, the possession of $500.00 worth of l”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Oliver v. Burg

2. “Nor do the views here announced overlook the settled principle that a location held by patent or by prior location is property in the highest sense and that no rights upon it can be initiated by trespass. We hold, however, not that a conflict with an adjoining claim by a subsequent locator confers any right as against such prior claim, but that as to the portion of the mining claim lying without such claim the location is not rendered void by the mere fact that the notice may be upon such patented or previously located ground.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Bixby v. Reynolds Mining Corp.