| Show QUE ownership of Tailings That Been Allowed to Accumulate on the L Land of Court Decision on the lie Subject ct one of the frequently asked ns ell us Is la jed In the t JIM there been any with retard gard to the th ownership of ore removed the mine and that Is r they ae Iel or iro arty In the case to which the iri the dispute arises about Ins whIch h or orl l Ik k f been util the line IIno of oC n a mill uni are rimed bi owners ot of the adjoining perY Replying to tillS this the Engineer In J Mining Journal In Ito current u urs 1 When lii pace and unworked min ff lS nr aro part of the freehold and ns as gih raI estate When separated tr ft m U tIll til freehold by means for Cor that the they be beC e A b by C or O Incidentally b by aI as when minerals are dug without such formal it Il would uld doubtless bo be everywhere that tailings allowed te up on land belong bolong to the thel landown or cr It If tho land nt at the time of such nc ac accumulation was part vart ot of the public do domain domain main subject to the United States Slates min miti big laws It Is that the tho mine owner might have n a prior right ns as against n a nt grantee of the United States nt at least m HO far ns as to bo be entitled to and remove the had bad been actually by the lie landowner But after such appropriation he could not r recover COer their value from Crom the land landowner landowner owner In vs S Cooney Nevada where a plaintiff was IS found Cound to have hao of oC certain land upon which ta tailings were deposited and do to luo Intruded and removed n a portion ot of such tailings the court of oC Nevada Neada held that plaintiffs rIght to the tailings was with his right to the land In that case the tailings had hod come from s several vera caul quartz mill none of which were owned by either party In Jones vs S Jackson th Colorado I I 1558 the supreme court ot of Colorado W Practically held heir that when tailings are allowed d to how upon the ground ot of another he bromes entitled to them But nUl the circumstances of olse were and for Cor the complete under ut of the decision the full Cull text either In the tho Colorado reports as above Or In Morrisons volume lume XIV pOIse page 72 should hould bl be It mu must t here tu to 1111 say that the tho of oC the hud had located ground upon Ullon which the grantors of the tho plaintiffs lied had already depoSIted lIed tailings and without formally locating or ap appropriating the ground had posted a notice stating slatIng that Illat they claimEd claim d these tailings and intended to wash them n again aln The ca case e involved the adequacy or of this end the ownership of the tailings deposited after as well vell as before beCore the location of the lIP ground b by the defendants The hn decision affirms the JUdgment rendered In favor of the de defendants b by the court belo beloIt below It appears from the tho general trend ot of th these decisions that while or I I tailings belong to the owner oner ot of tho ho thomine homine mine he Is bound In to re tIn them within his own that It lie he allows them to escape his sub owner of oC thorn them wilt will depend upon the ownership ot of the tho land upon which they accumulate It It Is 18 public land he ma may b by suitable acquire the right to It with hi his and any appropriator tor or of the land would take It under the lint easement casement It It Is pro pronte land ho ma may In certain States obtain that right under statutory lao visions the of oC which however Is not beyond question Thus In Channel company vs Control com company pliny bit California a b by a mIning under c ClIon 1238 lon 6 5 or of the code ot oC civil procedure to have railroad land condemned for the tho purpose ot of n a flume and was IS defeated on the ground that the proceeding was as 88 takIng property for tor vate uses This decision apparently In Invalidates validates the provisions ot of the code cadI un under dr der which the proceeding wae taken lint the tho fundamental prin I h that In the n ab nce ence or of modify modifyIng lug Ing statutory or other conditions the tho tailings Ix belong long to the lie owner of oC the land hand landon handon on which the they lie In III other words they th they have bl ome as Pony Pat ot of the tr free freehold hold real estate exactly ns as the mater lal of oC a would he be heThe beThe The statement does not Include actual damages done tt t t ty In such suh a 11 case for tor the tho party whose land hand Is by tall inks has hns a remedy In law b by suit for tor damages s and n a remedy In equity by II a abill bill Cor or a 0 restraining injunction In Incase case the ownership O of t the were ot of more value than the Injury suffered by their presence he would doubtless AI I L I 1 A EUREKA ShOWING MILL ON RIGHT N tp p In the process ot of agriculture and Iwed to remain In the soil does dolS not tom this effect Minerals thus thUR detach f fi remain a part ot of the real estate eltah nue are declared by tile the n law and have been sustained by br numerous decisions It will b be BUr suf tI Dt to CIte Forbes vs Gracey United G decided by the tho tolled States court In 2 The Tho tailings or refuse or of n a mine miner IrE r th ot of the bt b jt If he abandon this property hy by Casting It away or by suffering It to tofI tot fI t thre It will wll beyond the bound of his own oln land anyone ma may tip up It If IC the owner does not reo re It It If It Slow lIow upon the tho land ot of ota a that other is IA entitled to It nIl Thi common law principle Is modified In I lone lome of the States lJ by statutes con oon UllOn tile the power to liS as b by eminent domain rights tf I uy and even for Cor CalIfornia Georgia Idaho lI Dlana and Utah are instances But Dut I fail to recover damages at la law Whether IllS equity proceeding would be likewise defeated under such cIr cIrcumstances Is less clear for Cor equity takes cognizance ot of other than nry ary considerations A man mn may pro protest test for Instance agaInst the flooding of his homo home and aud grounds by sands even oen though theft thell marketable value would be thereby Increased and anda I a court ot of equity would not consider tills this Increase of oC value oJue as justifying the tho wrong but would protect hIm b by In junction even though he might not be beable able to establish In law a pecuniary dam damage e Indeed this Is one or of the tho chief or of I equity jurisdiction to prevent or remedy wrong s a which cannot bo be estimated In mone money or re repaired paired b by of mane money We do not understand the question of oC our correspondent to Involve con considerations or of this class and we trust that the reply we e have given GIen will wll cover coer the case for Cor him and aud for tor others At the same time we must take the ty ot of adding that our advice to any person seriously Interested In such Ii case as our correspondent states would be that he should consult a good lawyer laer laying before him nil all the tho facts rather than re rely upon mere general summaries ch M the one here glen given The Tho proverb Circumstances nIter alter cases Is emphatically true of law cases and reads th the decisions decision above cited the many others otherl bear lag at one point or nother upon UllOn the subject t will have new occasion to realize Ill tr th |
