In the next case the Supreme Court, which had apparently avoided any statement as to the status of the original end lines when the original side lines become statutory end lines, says explicitly:

"The course of this vein is across the Last Chance claim instead of in the direction of its length. Under those circumstances, the side lines of that location become the end lines, and the end the side lines."

Although logically implied, the right to pursue the vein outside of such new statutory side lines was not explicitly announced until the case of Del Monte, etc., Co. vs. Last Chance, etc., Co., 171 U. S., 55 (89), in which the court says:

FIG. 66. Diagram of Last Chance and neighboring claims. From 108 Fed. 190. The Stemwinder was the prior location and had extralateral rights through its side lines, crossed by vein, extended, but lost these rights where in conflict with the Last Chance, by failure to adverse the Last Chances application for patent. Bunker Hill, etc., Co. vs. Empire, etc., Co., 109 Fed. 538 (547).

“The end lines, as he [the locator] marks them on the surface, with the single exception hereinafter noticed, place the limits beyond which he may not go in the appropriation of any vein or veins along their course or strike ... the only exception to the rule that the end lines of the location as the locator places them, establish the limits beyond which he may not go in the appropriation of a vein on its course or strike, is where it is developed; that in fact the location has been placed not along but across the course of the vein. In such case the law declares that those which the locator called his side lines are his end lines, and those which he called end lines are in fact side lines, . . . 'Our laws have attempted to establish a rule by which each claim shall be so many feet of the vein, lengthwise of its course, to any depth below the surface, although laterally its inclination shall carry it ever so far from a perpendicular.'”

Also in Empire, etc., Co. vs. Tombstone, etc., Co., 100 Fed., 910 (913), the court says:

7 Last Chance, etc., Co. vs. Tyler, etc., Co., 157 U. S., 683, 687.

"The question here raised and claimed to be novel is this: In such a case, do the end lines become side lines so that the locator may follow the dip of the vein outside of a plane extended vertically downward therefrom?"

Then, stating the contentions of the two parties, the court concludes that the decisions of the United States Supreme Court clearly imply that the vein may be pursued beyond the new side line although these were originally end lines.

Rule. The law is well settled, that, when the vein crosses 20 both side lines instead of the end lines, the original side lines become end lines, and that between vertical planes passing through these new end lines the vein may be pursued on its dip to any distance whatever.

The angle at which the vein crosses the new end lines is immaterial. If it crosses them and they are parallel, the claim carries the right to all of the vein apexing within it, between the vertical planes of such legal end lines extended in their own direction.o

VEIN CROSSING ONE END LINE AND ONE SIDE LINE

Another important situation arises where the vein crosses one of the end lines of the claim and then passes out of the claim across one of the side lines. This was a situation that caused much discussion in mining litigation, and gave rise to conflicting decisions in the lower courts, until it was finally disposed of by a decision of the United States Supreme Court. In the cases involving this question which arose in the lower courts it was argued and held that since, by the doctrine announced by the United States Supreme Court in the Flagstaff case, the side lines became end lines when crossed by the vein, therefore when the vein crossed both an end and a side line that the original end line must of course be projected vertically against the vein and also the side line crossed by the vein; so that such vein would. be denied extralateral rights altogether. It was a long time before this situation was passed upon by the Supreme Court, but when such a case finally reached that tribunal it was decided that a

8 Empire, etc., Co. vs. Bunker Hill, etc., Co., 131 Fed., 591; Tyler, etc., Co. vs. Sweeney, 54 Fed., 284; Last Chance, etc., Co. vs. Tyler, 61 Fed., 557; Tyler, etc., Co. vs. Last Chance, etc., Co., 71 Fed., 848; Iron-Silver, etc., Co. vs. Elgin, etc., Co., 118 U. S., 196 (207); Walrath vs. Champion, etc., Co., 171 U. S., 293; Stevens vs. Williams, Fed. Cas., 13,413, 1 McCrary, 480; Watervale, etc., Co. vs. Leach, 33 Pac., 418; New Dunderberg, etc., Co. vs. Old, 97 Fed., 150; Cosmopolitan, etc., Co. vs. Foote, 101 Fed., 518; Parrott, etc., Co. vs. Heinze, 64 Pac., 326, 53 L. R. A., 491.

new end line parallel to the original end line, crossed by the vein, should be projected into the dip from the point where the vein departed from the claim across a side line. The situation was present and expressly recognized by the court in a previous case, 10 but other considerations determined how this case must be decided, so the court avoided expressing any opinion on this phase of the case. However, in the Del Monte case the situation came squarely before the court, which says:

"The fourth question presents a matter of importance . . . that question is, 'If the apex of a vein crosses one end line and one side line of a lode mining claim, as located thereon, can the locator of such vein follow it upon its dip beyond the vertical side line of his location?'''

Then, after reviewing the cases involving analogous situations and remarking that this particular question had not been decided by itself, the court says:

"Nowhere is it said that he [the locator] must have a vein which either on or below the surface extends from end line to end line in order to pursue that vein in its dip outside the vertical side line. . . . The locator is given the right to pursue any vein, whose apex is within his surface limits, on its dip outside the vertical side lines, but may not in such pursuit go beyond the vertical end lines. And this is all that the statute provides. Suppose a vein enters at an end line but terminates half-way across the length of the location, his right to follow that vein on its dip beyond the vertical side lines is as plainly given by the statute as though in its course it had extended to the farther end line. It is a vein, 'the top or apex of which lies inside of such surface lines extended downward vertically.' And the same is true if it enters at an end line and passes out at a side line."

The shape of the locations involved is shown in Fig. 67. The New York was the senior location, the Del Monte second, and the Last Chance third. The patent to the Last Chance included all that was not in conflict with the New York. The vein entered the Last Chance at its north end and left its patented ground at the point where it passed into the New York claim. The extralateral rights of the Last Chance were bounded by a vertical plane passing through the north end line and another parallel thereto, through the point r, which gave the ore in dispute to the Last Chance.

At the same term of the Supreme Court the case of Clark vs.

9 Del Monte, etc., Co. vs. Last Chance, etc., Co., 171 U. S., 55.

10 Last Chance, etc., Co. vs. Tyler, 157 U. S., 684.

14

Fitzgerald, 171 U. S., 92, was decided by the court as involving exactly the same principle, and extralateral rights were allowed although the vein crossed both an end and a side line. Fig. 68 shows the situation in this case. The Black Rock was the senior location. The owner of the Black Rock extracted ore from underneath his surface on the dip of the vein at the point marked

FIG. 67. Plat of claims and vein in Del Monte, etc., Co. vs. Last Chance, etc., Co., from the decision.

APEX OF VEIN

FIG. 68.

- Plat showing claims, apex of vein, etc., in Clark vs. Fitzgerald.

30

"Ore in Dispute" east of the point where the apex of the vein crossed the boundary line between the two claims. It was held that the ore belonged to the owner of the Niagara, and the owner of the Black Rock must account for the ore he had mined and removed. This interpretation of the Supreme Court has been consistently followed by all the courts since the above decisions were announced.

Rule. - It is one of the fundamental and well-settled principles of mining law, that where the vein or lode crosses one end line and a side line of the claim, such claim will have extralateral rights on the vein, bounded by a vertical plane through the end line crossed by the vein and by another parallel to the first passing through the intersection of the vein and the side line which it crosses.11

VEIN CROSSING ONE END LINE AND TERMINATING WITHIN THE
CLAIM

The situation in which a vein crosses one end line and terminates within the claim without reaching any other boundary is analogous to that in which the vein crosses an end line and a side line. Such a vein has extralateral rights bounded by a vertical plane passing through the end line crossed and a parallel plane through the termination of the vein. The law on the situation is laid down by the Supreme Court in Del Monte, etc., Co. vs. Last Chance, etc., Co., 171 U. S., 55 (88), although this particular situation did not exist in said case and the law was only stated arguendo. The court says:

"Every vein whose apex is within the vertical limits of his surface lines passes to him by virtue of his location. He is not limited to only those veins which extend from one end line to another, or from one side line to another, or from one line of any kind to another, but he is entitled to every vein whose top or apex lies within his surface lines. he is entitled to them throughout their entire depth. . . between vertical planes drawn downward as

11 Colorado, etc., Co. vs. Turck, 54 Fed., 262, 4 C. C. A., 313, 12 U. S. Ap., 85; Tyler, etc., Co. vs. Sweeney, 54 Fed., 284, 4 C. C. A., 329, 7 U. S. Ap., 463; Consolidated, etc., Co. vs. Champion, etc..., Co., 63 Fed., 540; Stevens vs. Williams, Fed. Cas., 13,413, 1 McCrary, 480; Last Chance, etc., Co. vs. Tyler, etc., Co., 61 Fed., 557; Del Monte, etc., Co. vs. New York, etc., Co., 66 Fed., 212; Tyler. etc., Co. vs. Last Chance, etc., Co., 71 Fed., 848; Tombstone, etc., Co. vs. Way Up, etc., Co., 1 Ariz., 426, 25 Pac., 794; Wolfley vs. Lebanon, etc., Co., 4 Colo., 112; Johnson vs. Buell, 4 Colo., 557; King vs. Amy, etc., Co., 9 Mont., 543 (Modified, 152 U. S., 222), Fitzgerald vs. Clark, 17 Mont., 100, 42 Pac., 273; Republican, etc., Co. vs. Tyler, etc., Co., 79 Fed., 733; Del Monte, etc., Co. vs. Last Chance, etc., Co., 171 U. S., 55; Parrott, etc., Co. vs. Heinze, 64 Pac., 326; Southern, etc., Co. vs. Holmes, etc.. Co., 73 Pac., 759; Ajax, etc., Co. vs. Hilkey, 72 Pac., 447, 31 Colo., 131.