Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
RICHMOND MINING CO. v. EUREKA MINING CO.; SAME v. SAME, 1881 — 154 U.S. 664 · caselaw · US
General
RICHMOND MINING CO. v. EUREKA MINING CO.; SAME v. SAME
154 U.S. 66426 L. Ed. 560·Supreme Court of the United States·1881
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
RICHMOND MINING CO. v. EUREKA MINING CO. SAME v. SAME.
APPEALS FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEVADA.
Nos. 116 and 117.
Argued March 25 and 30, 1881.
Decided April 25, 1881.
Richmond Mining Go. v. Eureka Mining Go., 103 U. S. 839, followed.
Mr. Thomas Wren, Mr. P. Phillips and Mr. S. M. Wilson for appellant.
Mr. T. T. Crittenden and Mr. Harry I. Thornton for appellee.
[MAJORITY — Mr. Chief Justice Waite]
Mr. Chief Justice Waite
delivered the opinion of the court.
These are suits in equity and are dependent on the suit in ejectment between the same parties which has just been decided.
The decrees of the Circuit Court are affirmed for the reasons stated in the opinion filed in that case. Affirmed.