Mining Company v. Tarbet’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

16 federal appellate · 4 district · 34 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 85 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The act of 1872 ( 17 Stat. 91 ) is more explicit in its terms; but the intent is undoubtedly the same, as it respects end lines and side lines, and the right to follow the dip outside of the latter. We think that the intent of both statutes is that mining locations on lodes or veins shall be made thereon lengthwise, in the general direction of such veins or lodes on the surface of the earth where they are discoverable; that the end lines are to cross the lode and extend perpendicularly downwards, and to be continued in their own direction either way horizontally; and that the right to follow the dip outside of the side lines is based on the hypothesis that the direction of ■ these lines corresponds substantially with the course of the lode or vein at its apex on or near the surface. It was not the intent of the law to allow a person to make his location crosswise of a vein so that the side lines shall cross it, and thereby give him the right to follow the strike of the vein outside of his side lines. That would subvert the whole system sought to be established by the law. If he does locate his claim in that -way, his rights must be subordinated to the rights of those who have properly located on the lode. Their right to follow the dip outside of their side lines cannot be interfered with by him. His right to the lode only extends to so much of the lode as his claim covers. If he has located crosswise of the lode, and his claim is only 100 feet wide, that 100 feet is all he h”

   11 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Argentine Mining Co. v. Terrible Mining Co. · Del Monte Mining & Milling Co. v. Last Chance Mining & Milling Co.

2. ““ Our conclusion, may be summed up in these propositions: First, the location as made on the surface by the locator détermines the extent of rights below the surface; second, the end lines, as he marks them on the surface, with the single exception hereinafter noticed, place the limits beyond which he may not go in the appropriation of any vein or veins along their course or strike; third, every vein, ‘ the top or apex of which lies inside of such surface lines extended downward vertically,’ becomes his by virtue of his location, and he may pursue it to any depth beyond his vertical side lines, although in so doing he enters beneath the surface of some other proprietor; fourth, the only exception to the rule that the end lines of the location as the locator places them establish the limits beyond which he may not go in the appropriation of a vein on its course or strike is where it is developed, that, in fact, the location has been- placed not along, but across the course of the vein. In such case,' the law declares that those which the locator called his side lines are his end lines, and those which he called end lines are in fact side lines, and this, upon the proposition that it was the intent of Congress to give to the locator only so many feet of the length of the vein, that length to be bounded by the lines which the locator has established of his location. Our laws have attempted to establish a rule by . which each claim shall be so many feet of the vein, lengthwise of”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Del Monte Mining & Milling Co. v. Last Chance Mining & Milling Co. · Walrath v. Champion Mining Co.

3. “was in possession of the claim, describing it, holding the same in accordance with' the mining, laws and the customs of the- miners of the mining district, and that the apex and course of the vein in dispute are within such surface, then, as against one subsequently entering, he is deemed to be possessed of the land within his boundaries to any depth, and also of the vein in the surface to any depth on its dip, though the vein in its dip downward passes the side line of the surface boundary and extends beneath.other and adjoining lands, and a trespass upon such part of the vein on its dip, though beyond the side surface line, is unlawful to the same extent as a trespass on the vein inside of the surface boundary. This possession of the vein outside of the surface line, on its dip, is limited in two ways — by the length of the course of the'vein within the surface; and by an extension of the end lines of the surface claim vertically, and in their own direction, so as to intersect the vein on its dip; and the right of a possessor to recover for trespass on' the vein is subject to only these restrictions.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Walrath v. Champion Mining Co.