Enter a name, company, place or keywords to search across this item. Then click "Search" (or hit Enter).
Collection: Directories and Documents > Pamphlets
Twenty-One Mining Company vs. Original Sixteen to One Mine Inc. Brief for Appellee (PH 10-7)(02-01-1917) (49 pages)
Go to the Archive Home
Go to Thumbnail View of this Item
Go to Single Page View of this Item
Download the Page Image
Copy the Page Text to the Clipboard
Don't highlight the search terms on the Image
Show the Page Image
Show the Image Page Text
Reset View and Center Image
Zoom Out
Zoom In
Rotate Left
Rotate Right
Toggle Full Page View
Flip Image Horizontally
More Information About this Image
Get a Citation for Page or Image - Copy to the Clipboard
Go to the Previous Page (or Left Arrow key)
Go to the Next Page (or Right Arrow key)
Page: of 49
2
mencement of this action, plaintiff and its predecessors in interest were engaged in developing the
Sixteen to One vein, which apexes in said claim and
extends on its dip beneath the surface of the adjoining Tightner Extension, Belmont, and Valentine
claims, owned by defendant. Plaintiff had sunk the
‘Sixteen to One Shaft,” following down upon or in
the immediate vicinity of the Sixteen to One vein,
until, in August, 1916, at a depth of about 700 feet,
on the inclination, plaintiff’s shaft connected with
an upraise of defendant, which extends a short
distance upward on the vein from defendant’s
“Twenty-one Tunnel,’? which tunnel enters the
mountain far below plaintift’s workings. Plaintiff thereupon found that defendant was actively
engaged in mining high-grade ore from the stope
marked ‘‘Trespass Stope”’ on the map, which is more
than 700 feet below the apex of the vein measured
on the dip or inclination (Tr. 17, 22, 29), and vertically “beneath the surface of the Eclipse Extension
claim, owned by a third party. Finding that the
vein in defendant’s workings, and on which defendpe was mining, was plaintiff’s Sixteen to One vein—
ontrary to the claim theretofore made by defendant.