Show two supreme court opinions i s ol opinions inions were handed d 0 IN I 1 I 1 by y tile the sup supreme renic court yes e 1 may one lie and the other revising judgements judge ments from froin judge joshua Josli greenwood Gre onwood of the fifth judicial kii lecial district I 1 alie lie supreme coil court t aff affirms irnis the 0 decision in ill the case oi of the bullion beek beck ghampion Oham pion mining go against g I 1 i I 1 I 1 st t hie 1 I e 1 eureka il re att I 1 hill 11 mining fining go ao 50 in ill i was given flie l lio bullion wc beck 0 jo o of for ore taken from its property in tho the tintic district jenab county to mity ly by the eureka II 11 ill inmany ini any in 1805 1895 and 1896 1826 action not 11 ot brought by the bullion billion iiii company ny until december j 1901 ao I 1 bight years year it after the trespass sq to took k pance as charged most of the tight light hinged upon agreements at ii a ale ie between the Biff Bullio lion ir beck and eu e a hill companies on oil july 2 1888 which defined tile bobic boundaries laries of tile the two mines but at a meeting ine eting between agents named by the two companies tile separate se a grec ments were changed r tn ill 1895 and 1890 the eureka hill colip company illy started to drift up tip from tile the the TOO foot level it was charged eli arged that they worked into the bullion 70 76 mine and lemov od a large largo quantity of ore though thoi igi much difficulty was enco encountered mitered in deuning the limits of fie cie two nii mines ties A verdict v e i dict was nat is granted gi anted to the bullion jav beck lc company ny for ai and the supreme su court af firms the verdict alie wits was written I 1 NY justice sti ajr V M mccarty at ai concurred in ill by chief justice D N and justice J E prick frick NEW TRIAL ORDERED the S second e ease case f from roni judge greenwood of the fifth dish io ic was that of Fil fillmore linore city ap i A the fillmore roller mill company in which h it a verdict was given UK the city for or 2009 its as one third f the cost of rebuilding a dam dain mid and building a new can canal alfor for the use ilse of both after a freshet had destroyed th the C old d dam a in jubline Ju blice J ei K frick writes all the opinion which is concur concurred redin in by his associates in which he reverses es tile verdict and reni demands remands ands the o ase oase for it a n new w trial on tale ground that the collela complaint I 1 ailt cl charges I 1 g s an I 1 implied agreement between the city Y and tile the mill for the main ainaire of the canal 1811 while ile die court allowed e evidence vi dence to be introduced trod showing tit an express agreement gre r een ement lent it appears from the above that the merits of the case cas lias has not yet been passed upon by higher conra |