Thank you for visiting SNEWPapers!

Sign up free
Page thumbnail for Eureka Daily Sentinel
Domestic News June 20, 1876

Eureka Daily Sentinel

Eureka, Eureka County, Nevada

What is this article about?

The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision in the case of Eureka Mining and Smelting Company vs. Frank Way. Chief Justice Hawley delivered the opinion, with Justice Earll concurring and Justice Beatty dissenting on grounds of sufficient testimony for a jury.

Clipping

OCR Quality

98% Excellent

Full Text

SUPREME COURT DECISION. - The Supreme Court has given its decision in the case of the Eureka Mining and Smelting Company, appellant, versus Frank Way, respondent, affirming the decision of the lower Court. Chief Justice Hawley delivered the opinion, Justice Earll concurring and Justice Beatty dissenting; the latter, in his opinion given separately, claiming that the judgment of the lower Court should be reversed on the ground of there being a sufficiency of testimony to entitle plaintiff to the finding of a jury on the question. In the opinion of a majority of the Supreme Court the boundaries of the property in dispute were not sufficiently defined, and therefore there was not sufficient evidence as to the possession of the land by appellant and its grantors to authorize the Court to submit the case to a jury, and the judgment of the District Court is affirmed.

What sub-type of article is it?

Legal Or Court

What keywords are associated?

Supreme Court Decision Eureka Mining Frank Way Mining Dispute Court Affirmation

What entities or persons were involved?

Eureka Mining And Smelting Company Frank Way Chief Justice Hawley Justice Earll Justice Beatty

Domestic News Details

Key Persons

Eureka Mining And Smelting Company Frank Way Chief Justice Hawley Justice Earll Justice Beatty

Outcome

the supreme court affirmed the judgment of the district court.

Event Details

The Supreme Court decided in the case of the Eureka Mining and Smelting Company, appellant, versus Frank Way, respondent. Chief Justice Hawley delivered the opinion, Justice Earll concurring, and Justice Beatty dissenting. The majority found the boundaries of the disputed property not sufficiently defined, lacking evidence of possession by appellant and its grantors to submit to a jury.

Are you sure?