(after stating the facts). It is claimed that the court erred, among other things, in finding, as a conclusion of law:

*735 The conclusions of law upon the agreed statement of facts are in harmony with the decisions of this court, as will hereafter more clearly appear.

The contention of the plaintiff in error is that the defendant in error has no extralateral right to follow the lode or vein in the Tyler mining claim in its downward course beyond the southerly side line of the Tyler claim, for the reason that, as is shown in the diagram, the lode or vein passes through the side line of the Tyler location. It is further contended that any rights which the defendant in error may have by virtue of its ownership of the Tyler claim must date from the establishment of “the intermediate end line first made on the ground after the commencement of this action.”

Both of these questions have heen decided by this court adversely to the contention of plaintiff in error. It is well settled by numerous deeisious of the supreme court that where a case lias been brought before an appellate court, and there decided, a second writ of error brings up nothing for review but tlie proceedings subsequent to the mandate; that the appellate court is not bound to consider any of the questions which were before the court on the first writ of error.

In Roberts v. Cooper, 20 How. 481 , the court said:

In Mining Co. v. Sweeney, 4 C. C. A. 329 , 54 Fed. 284 , and Last Chance Min. Co. v. Tyler Min. Co., 9 C. C. A. 613 , 61 Fed. 557 , this court decided that where a lode enters an end line of a regularly located mining claim, and runs in its course lengthwise, uearly parallel with the side lines of the claim for tlie greater part of the length of the claim, the owners of the claim are not deprived of the exiralateral rights attached to the claim, under the provisions of section 2322, Rev. St., because the lode or vein crosses a side line before reaching the other end line; that the true construction of the statute is that, when the lode or vein crosses a side line before reaching the other end line, the owner’s extralateral rights will extend from the end at which the lode enters to the point on the lode at which it crosses tin1 side line. Numerous authorities were cited in support of these views. The following additional authorities sustain the principles therein announced: Consolidated Wyoming Gold Min. Co. v. Champion Min. Co., 63 Fed. 540, 546 ; Del *736 Monte Mining & Milling Co. v. New York & L. C. Min. Co., 66 Fed. 212, 215 .

In reply to the criticism of counsel with reference to the right to draw the intermediate end line at the point where the lode crosses the southerly side line of the Tyler, we quote the language of Judge Hallett in Del Monte Mining & Milling Co. v. New York & L. C. Min. Co., supra, as follows:

In Last Chance Min. Co. v. Tyler Min. Co., 157 U. S. 683, 696 , 15 Sup. Ct. 733, the court declined to consider this question, because, under the views expressed by the court upon another branch of the case, it was deem.ed unnecessary so to do.

There is' no decided case to which our attention has been called in opposition to the views heretofore expressed by this court upon the questions’ involved in this case. The judgment of the circuit court .is affirmed, with costs. ■

/