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
4
Within the vertical boundaries of the Sixteen to
One claim there is a very limited opportunity for
discovering and developing ore (Tr. 108), and, if
plaintiff were compelled to cease mining on the
Sixteen to One vein extralaterally, it would have to
shut down its plant and would suffer material damage and great hardship (Tr. 101, 109).
On October 9, 1916, the court below denied this
motion, stating that the matter was not properly
before it for determination (Tr. 101). For the sole
purpose of testing the matter and obtaining relief
from this hardship, and acting under advice of counsel, plaintiff, on or about October 10, 1916, caused
defendant to be notified in writing of plaintiff’s intention to proceed with the extraction of ore extralaterally, stating that the object of such mining was
to raise squarely the question as to whether or not
plaintiff was entitled to the protection of a bond
(Tr. 103). .
Thereafter, on or about
nee € of motion to dissolve the
unction theretofore Secured b
. . 2 a
Plaintiff, basing the Motion on the ground that plaintiff had resumed Mining, as aforesaid, and had.