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.
Boston and Montana Consolidated Copper and Silver Mining Company v. Montana Ore Purchasing Company, 1903 — 188 U.S. 645 · caselaw · US
General
Boston and Montana Consolidated Copper and Silver Mining Company v. Montana Ore Purchasing Company
188 U.S. 64547 L. Ed. 634·Supreme Court of the United States·1903
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
Boston and Montana Consolidated Copper and Silver Mining Company v. Montana Ore Purchasing Company.
Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Montana.
No. 102.
Argued December 3, 1902.
Decided February 23, 1903.
The same counsel appeared as in No. 103.
[MAJORITY — Mr. Justice Pecrham]
Mr. Justice Pecrham
delivered the opinion of the court.'
This case arises upon demurrer to the complainant’s complaint. The demurrer was sustained and the complaint dismissed, and judgment given for the defendants, and thereupon the circuit judge certified the question of jurisdiction to this court.
The action-was brought to recover $500,000-damages sustained by the plaintiff in error by reason of the wrongful taking of ore of that value from the mining claim of the plaintiff in error. Substantially the same averments are made in the complaint as in the case which immediately precedes and the questions involved are the same, excepting that the former is a suit in equity •and this is an action at law.
For the reasons stated in the opinion in No. 103, the judgment in this case is ■
Affirmed.