Show RECENT MINING MININ G DECISIONS prepared for the mining review disposal of corporate property the trustees of a corporation formed to buy sell and deal in mines with the ratification of the majority of the stockholders may as against the objection of the minority stockholders sell mining property belonging to the corporation lange v reservation mining smelting smelling Sm elting co supreme court of washington 93 pacific acting for party adversely interested one employed to secure for his employer options on mining claims cannot receive compensation from the parties executing the options without losing his right to compensation pensa tion from the employer ignorant of the facts lemon v little supreme court of south dakota northwestern 1001 adverse claimants right where an adverse claimant to a mining claim falls fails to show any right to the ground in controvert ry he cannot object that the claimants are not lot entitled to a patent because of the insufficiency sufficiency of their declaratory statement milwaukee gold extraction co v gordon supreme court of montana 95 pacific indians possessory rights in alaska act may 17 1884 c 53 23 stat 24 extend ng the mining laws to alaska section 8 P 26 which provides that indians or other persons shall not be disturbed in the possession of any lands actually in use or occupation or now claimed by them ref refers rs only to possession held at the time of its passage and does not protect possession acquired since columbia canning co v hampton circuit court of appeals federal 60 priority of rights to claim if plaintiffs location of a placer mining claim on may unaccompanied by discovery at the time gave him no right to return june ath after an absence to procure supplies etc and after defendant had made due location of the claim and taken possession for the purpose of exploration defendants reme remedy y was to protect his possession against plaintiffs entry and plaintiff having reentered entered re peaceably and both being in possession by common consent after june ath it became a race of diligence between them to discover gold and he who first discovered it obtained the prior right his discovery did not relate back to the date of his location but his location was made valid by discovery and took eff effect act from that date and it gave him the full right to the claim to the exclusion of all others johanson v white circuit court of appeals federal 0 |