Silver King Co. v. Conkling Mining Co.,
255 U.S. 151 (1921)

Annotate this Case
  • Syllabus  | 
  • Case

U.S. Supreme Court

Silver King Co. v. Conkling Mining Co., 255 U.S. 151 (1921)

Silver King Coalition Mines Company v. Conkling Mining Company

No. 158, 187

Argued January 19, 1921

Decided February 28, 1921

255 U.S. 151


1. Monuments prevail over courses and distances. P. 255 U. S. 162.

2. A patent which describes a lode mining claim by courses and distances, but which also calls for monuments at the first two corners, and refers to the other two turning points as "corner No. 3" and "corner No. 4," is subject to interpretation as calling for monuments at all four corners, and opens the door to field notes showing such

Page 255 U. S. 152

monuments and to parol evidence of their actual location on the ground. Pp. 255 U. S. 159, 255 U. S. 162.

3. And such interpretation is greatly strengthened when the patent, by its language, assumes identity of the claim as therein described and patented with the lot as surveyed, platted, and designated by the surveyor general, in view of his duty to see that such lots are identified by monuments on the ground. P. 255 U. S. 161.

4. Under the mining law, an application to patent a lode claim is for a claim marked by monuments; the posted and published notice of application refers to a claim so marked, and such notice, as a jurisdictional basis, will not sustain a patent for land outside the monuments as against a senior location. P. 255 U. S. 161.

5. The rights of the respondent under its patent were fixed by the register's final certificate. P. 255 U. S. 162.

6. The Act of April 28, 1904, amending Rev.Stats. § 2327, and declaring that monuments shall prevail over inconsistent descriptions in mining patents, merely made more explicit the previous policy of the law. Id.

230 F. 553 reversed.

Review of a decree of the circuit court of appeals which reversed a decree of the district court dismissing a bill to establish title to a body of ore as within the plaintiff's patented mining claim and to obtain an account for ore extracted. The case is stated in the opinion, p. 255 U. S. 159.

Page 255 U. S. 159

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.