Some Geological Features And Court Decisions Of The Utah Apex-Utah Consolidated Controversy, Bingham District

THE decision of the Supreme Court of the United States not to review the findings of the lower courts closes an interesting chapter in the mining litigation that has arisen as a result of the extralateral feature of the mining law. The time seems opportune to record some of the important geological features, and also some of the legal features, of the controversy, in the hope that these will be permanently accessible to members of the mining profession. After many rumors of litigation, the Utah Consolidated Mining Co. sued its neighbor for the ore that had been, it was alleged, wrongfully extracted from its so-called Yampa limestone lode. This ore lay beneath Utah-Apex surface and was claimed by virtue of the extralateral rights conferred on the Utah Consolidated Co. through the ownership of certain specific mining claims, one of the principal claims being the Yampa. Previous to bringing suit, the Utah Consolidated Co. had strengthened its position by purchasing the Old Yampa mine and by making an agreement with the Utah Metal & Tunnel Co., which gave it clearer title to the outcrop of the Highland Boy limestone. Access to the workings of the Utah-Apex Co. was secured and reciprocal privileges gave Utah-Apex representatives the right to enter the properties of the Utah Consolidated Co. This resulted in the Utah-Apex immediately bringing countersuit for ore alleged to have been wrongfully extracted from under its surface in the Leadville country, see Fig. 4. Six cases came up for consideration: five related to the original suit and the countersuit, and one related to the Dana extralateral claims of the Utah-Apex Co.