Show RECENT MINING DECISIONS prepared for the mining review infringement ement of ore concentration patent the sulman picard and ballot patena patent no for a process of ore concentration was not anticipated and discloses novelty and invention also held infringed minerals separation ltd vs hyde P S district court montana federal pubic mineral lands lanam on application for a patent for six mining claims adjoining each other and lying lengthwise along a river in a forest reservation notice was sent by the register to the superintendent of the reservation who caused an examination to be made and as a result there was filed in the general land office a letter from the acting forester inclosing reports from the state geologist and a forest ranger and recommending that a patent be denied on the ground that the claims were held for water power and not for mineral purposes the report of the geologist was to the effect that the claims contained very little ore and an d were of nu no commercial value for mining purposes but were very valuable for the water power thereon three weeks after the filing of such papers a patent was issued to the applicant it appeared thit no hearing was had upon the protest of the forester probably because it erroneous erroneously iv stated that no patent for the claims to which it related had been applied for held that if the facts on which it was based were established they would constitute ground for refusing a patent and that whether it was not considered through inadvertence ver tence or whether through mistake of law it was deemed insufficient the united states was entitled to a cancellation of the patent that such questions of fact might be considered and determined by the land department part ment united states vs lavenson U S district court washington federal process for treatment of ores orem the brown patent no for a process for the treatment of precious metal bearing ores the essential 1 feature of which consists in changing the order of the well known steps in the recovery of metals from the ores by the cyanide process so that the cyanide treatment ment for the recovery of the fine values precedes concentration to which only the residue or tailings is subjected while not entitled to a broad construction in view of the prior art is valid and is infringed by a process in which substantially the same st steps eps are taken in the same order although other steps not included or required by the patent are added As applied to the cyanide process of treating ores the essence of leaching does not depend upon any special mode of applying to the ore the dissolving cyanide solution but upon the fact of the application producing dissolution of the values vincent vs tonopah mining co TT IT S district court delaware federal COMPI complainant al n ant sued tor quiet imet tule title to rights claiming part of the claim extended vertically vertical lv downward a defendant for many years had asserted that the part of the vein in controversy pertained to its of the anex which was within its boundaries and had mined the vein openly and notoriously under claim of ownership extending its workings to the vertical boundary between its clain claim and ana complainants and to a depth of about 1400 14 feet from which it had largely e extracted extrac tr acted teu the ore held that defendants possession of the vein in controversy being adverse complainant was not entitled to maintain a suit in equity to quiet title nor to an ms r junction restraining defendants defendant fouriner burthe workings of the vein as incidental relle rell E golden cycle mining co vs christmas troia gold mining co U S circuit court of appeals federal rates on ore upon shipment of ore in g der tariff rates providing for determining of the valuation from the gross assay value del ethe c entire contents at destination alter after the ducting the charges for assaying 11 et berti n carrier was not bound to accent t the e smelt ficare of valuation furnished by the si bertl rt ing company receiving it where such wit etli cleate was not determined in accordance iviona the carriers rules and re regulations 11 1 1 1 acas gomery shoshone mines alin es co vs las as ane e tonopah ry co supreme COU court t of 01 vada pacific 1157 |