to the length claimed, regardless of their surface boundaries.

The suggestion is rendered more plausible by a consideration of a further contention of the Richmond company as to the character of the vein in dispute,i. e. that it was a pipe-vein1 lying in the ground as we might conceive a gas or water main to lie, inclined and bending, but taking a general easterly course underground. By a bend in the vein Judge Field certainly had reference to the longitudinal course of the vein, and not its dip.

The deduction that Judge Field intended to announce the doctrine that under the act of 1866 the lode locator had a right to all of the vein within the vertical diverging end-line planes, would be all but conclusive but for the following paragraph:—

"Lines drawn vertically down through the ledge or "lode at right angles with a line representing this gen"eral course at the ends of the claimant's line of loca❝tion will carve out, so to speak, a section of the ledge "or lode within which he is permitted to work and out "of which he cannot pass. ""

Certainly the Eureka case, as adjudicated by both trial and appellate courts, is authority for the doctrine that under the act of 1866 a patentee or locator with diverging end-line planes is not denied all extralateral right, but that at least the locator or patentee is entitled to that segment of the vein underneath the surface which is found (1) within the extended vertical diverging end-line planes, and (2) within rectangular end-line planes applied to the extremities of linear length on the vein within the location. And this effect, as we shall

'See Prof. Blake's Monograph, "Ore Deposits of Eureka District,' vol. vi, Trans. Am. Inst. M. E. 554, 560; Dr. Raymond's Monograph, "Eureka-Richmond Case," Id. 371, 378, and "What Is a Pipe-Vein ? ›› Id. 393.

see, has been given to the decision by the supreme court of California.

8 577. The Argonaut-Kennedy case. The facts involved in the Argonaut-Kennedy case, decided by the supreme court of California, may be best outlined with the aid of a diagram (figure 55).

The Argonaut company owned the Pioneer, or Argonaut, claim, located prior to the passage of the act of 1872, and had entered it for patent and received a certificate of purchase prior to May 10, 1872, but the patent was not issued until after the passage of the act. The end-lines diverge in the direction of the dip. The ore bodies in dispute were upon the dip of the vein within the Pioneer end-line planes extended, that is, south of the north Pioneer end-line A-B-B' and underneath the surface of the Silva quartz mine, which was owned by the Kennedy company. The Silva was located twenty years after the entry of the Pioneer. The ore

bodies in dispute were reached by the Kennedy company through drifts on the vein run from the side of their working shaft having its collar within the Kennedy millsite. The Kennedy company also owned the Kennedy quartz mine, located on the same vein adjoining the Pioneer on the north, but asserted no right to the ore bodies in dispute by reason of such ownership. All the underground works of the Kennedy company were within the extralateral-right lines of the Kennedy quartz mine, except that some of the levels were extended south of the prolonged common boundary between the Pioneer and Kennedy properties, and this extension, together with the extraction of ore south of that boundary was the trespass complained of.

The Kennedy company defended upon the following grounds:

(1) The end-lines of the Pioneer are not parallelconsequently it is not entitled to extralateral rights; the ore bodies in dispute, being underneath the surface of the Silva, belong to that claim by virtue of its commonlaw right;

(2) That if it be held that the rights upon the Pioneer vein are referable solely to the act of 1866, that act, by implication, required that end-lines should be parallel, as a condition precedent to the exercise of the extralateral right;

(3) That even if under the act of 1866 parallelism of end-lines was not required, the owners of the Pioneer, having accepted a patent issued after the passage of the act of 1872, it is bound by the requirement of parallelism of end-lines embodied in that law. As the endlines are not parallel, there is no extralateral right, and the ore bodies in dispute fall to the Silva by commonlaw right;

(4) That if, notwithstanding the non-parallelism of

the Pioneer end-lines, the extralateral right is not wholly denied, such right should be defined by applying a plane parallel to the south end-line, and the northern extremity of the vein within the Pioneer location, on the theory that the description contained in the patent commenced at the south end of the claim.

The contention of the Argonaut Mining Company was as follows:

(1) The title of the Argonaut company to the Pioneer, or Argonaut, mine originated, ripened, and became vested in its predecessors under the act of July 26, 1866. This act did not, either in terms or inferentially, require end-lines to be parallel, and no consequence is attached to a deviation from parallelism;

(2) Although the end-lines were not required to be parallel under the act of 1866, yet if by any process of reasoning any limitation upon the extralateral right was imposed upon the locator's title, by reason of the divergence of the end-lines, such limitation was removed by the act of May 10, 1872, which granted to owners of locations theretofore made the right to pursue the vein on its downward course between the endline planes of such location as it then existed;

(3) The title evidenced by the certificate of purchase issued prior to the passage of the act of 1872 was the complete equitable title, equivalent for all practical purposes to the issuance of a patent. Congress could not deprive the purchaser of any rights acquired under that certificate nor cast upon such purchaser any additional burdens. It is quite manifest, however, that congress never intended that the estate of any mining locator held prior to May 10, 1872, should suffer any diminution or curtailment by reason of the act passed on that day;

(4) The patent of the United States issued to the predecessor in title of the Argonaut company in terms grants the vein throughout its entire depth between the end-lines described in the patent and these lines extended in their own direction. The land department had jurisdiction of the subject-matter. If more was given than the patentee should have had, it is a question between the government and the patentee; outsiders cannot collaterally assail the patent;

(5) The courts cannot construct end-lines. The endlines described in a patent issued by the executive cannot be readjusted by the judiciary. The extralateral rights of the Pioneer must be determined by the calls of the patent in connection with the law under which the right to it became perfected, and the physical facts as to the course of the vein through the ground;

(6) If this be not true, the only method for adjusting inequalities for which any judicial precedent can be found is announced in the Eureka case,-i. e. lines drawn at right angles to the course of the vein, at the extreme points on the vein within the location. The application of this theory will give all the ore bodies in dispute (and more) to the Argonaut company.

The case was tried before Judge G. W. Nicol, superior judge of Tuolumne county upon an agreed statement of facts. He rendered judgment in favor of the Argonaut company. An appeal was perfected to the supreme court of California, which court affirmed the judgment.

The opinion of the appellate court may be epitomized as follows:

(1) The Argonaut company was entitled to all the rights on the vein which would attach to a location in that form under the act of 1866. The act of 1872 did not deprive that company of anything theretofore ac