Clason v. Matko,
223 U.S. 646 (1912)

Annotate this Case
  • Syllabus  | 
  • Case

U.S. Supreme Court

Clason v. Matko, 223 U.S. 646 (1912)

Clason v. Matko

No. 178

Submitted February 26, 1912

Decided March 11, 1912

223 U.S. 646


Where the statute provides for an agreed statement on which the case can be submitted, a stipulation between the parties as to certain facts will not be considered as an agreed statement superseding the pleadings, but only as an agreement relating to the facts enumerated in the stipulation.

This Court is not disposed to reverse a lower court on its construction of a stipulation in the conduct of a case, even if the stipulation be ambiguous.

While there may be a distinction between abandonment and forfeiture of mining claims, there is no distinction as those terms are used in § 3241, Rev.Stat., of the Territory of Arizona.

That which is taken subject to a right cannot be a burden upon that right.

Section 3241, Rev.Stat. Arizona, was enacted pursuant to the power given by § 2324, Rev.Stat. of the United States, and is not in conflict either with that section or with § 1857, Rev.Stat. of the United States.

10 Ariz. 175 affirmed.

The facts, which involve the construction and constitutionality of the mining laws of Arizona and the validity of a mining location thereunder, are stated in the opinion.

Page 223 U. S. 647

Disclaimer: Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.