111 U.S. 356 - Eilers v. Boatman — 111 U.S. 356

How this case has been cited

Cited by 42 later decisions (10 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 1959 · most notably Bear Lake & River Water Works & Irrigation Co. v. Garland (1896), Harrison v. Perea (1897)

3 federal appellate · 10 district · 10 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

¶1APPEAL EKOM THE SUPREME COURT OP THE TERRITORY OP UTAH.

¶2Practice.

¶3The Supreme Court of a -Territory states as conclusion of law matter which should be stated as finding of fact. This court treats it as a finding of fact, under the act of April 7th, 1874,18 Stat. 37

¶4Action for the settlement of adverse claims to mineral lands under § 2326 Rev. Stat.

¶5Mr. C. K. Gilchrist for appellant.

¶6Mr. C. W. Bennett for appellees.

¶7Mr. Justice Miller

¶8delivered the opinion of the court.

¶9This, 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.

¶10The 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.

¶11This, 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 *357objects 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.”

¶12If, 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.

¶13A point is made by appellant that the Flagstaff Mining Company was in possession of the lode at the time the Nabob claim was located.

¶14We do not see how this would improve the subsequent location of appellant.

¶15But it- is sufficient to say that no such finding is made by the court in regard to the Flagstaff claim.

¶16By 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.

¶17In 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

¶18Affirm the judgment, and it is so ordered.