Consolidated Coppermines Corp. v. Nevada Consolidated Copper Co.

Good Law
64 F.2d 440·1933 U.S. App. LEXIS 4120
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitApril 6, 1933No. 6609California7,219 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Sawtelle, J.

This is an appeal from a decree enjoining the appellant from prosecuting certain mining operations in the appellee’s Champion and Liberty claims, in the Robinson mining district, White Pine eounty, Nev. The court below reserved jurisdiction of the cause for the purpose of making any future order modifying the decree, and particularly to determine the merits of certain counterclaims urged by the appellant.

The case turns on the interpretation of a certain mining contract entered into by the appellant and the appellee. A complete statement of the facts and the law involved in this controversy is to be found in the able and exhaustive opinion of the court below, reported in (D. C.) 44 F.(2d) 192 -205, which it is unnecessary to reproduce here. We have carefully read that opinion, the elaborate briefs on appeal, and a goodly portion of the voluminous transcript. We find ourselves in agreement with the conclusions reached by the District Judge, and accordingly the decree is affirmed, with the reservations as to future jurisdiction therein contained.

Decree affirmed.

Dissenting Opinion

Wilbur, J.

(dissenting).

I am unable to agree with the conclusion reached by the majority adopting the opinion of the trial judge, reported in (D. C.) 44 F.(2d) 192 , as the opinion of this court, and will state some of my reasons therefor as briefly as may be, considering that the record contains 2,766 pages and the briefs 376 pages. •

The portion of the agreement dated June 16, 1926, between the appellee, hereinafter called the Nevada Company, and the appellant, hereinafter called the Coppermines Company, involved in this litigation, is article IV thereof. The provisions of this agreement of June 16, 1926, are quoted in part in the second paragraph of Judge Noreross’ opinion and more extensively later in the opinion, to which I refer to avoid a repetition thereof in the reported decisions. Nevada Cons. Copper Co. v. Consolidated Coppermines Corp. (D. C.) 44 F.(2d) 192, 194 , col. 2, 195, col. 1.

In article IV it was expressly agreed in part that “all of the ore in the Champion and Liberty claims of the Nevada Company extending westerly from a vertical plane coinciding with and passing through a line extending from the northeast corner of the Westphalia claim to the southeast comer of…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.