Citation network
Northern Pacific Ry. Co. Vs. Soderberg
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Feb 23, 1903
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
U.S. 526 (1903) U.S. Supreme Court Northern Pacific Ry. Co. v. SoderbergSearch
-
U.S. 526 (1903) Northern Pacific Railway Company v. SoderbergSearch
-
of Appeals Act of 1891, 26 Stat. 828, as interpreted by the decisions of this Court in Colorado Central Mining Co. v. TurckSearch
-
U. S. 408 , and Press Publishing Co. v. MonroeSearch
-
sustained by one construction and defeated by another, it is one arising under the laws of the United States. Doolan v. CarrSearch
-
question of law whether land valuable for its granite is mineral or nonmineral under the terms of the grant. Morton v. NebraskaSearch
-
this Court held, in Mullan v. UnitedSearch
-
the surface. This distinction between underground mines and open workings was expressly repudiated in Midland Ry. Co. v. HaunchwoodSearch
-
Brick & Tile Co., L.R. 20 Ch.Div. 552, and in Hext v. GillSearch
-
deposits, occupying the beds of ancient rivers or valleys, washed down from some vein or lode, United States v. IronSearch
-
Silver Mining Co., 128 U. S. 673 , this act has little bearing upon the present case, though in Freezer v. SweeneySearch
-
decisions of the state courts have also favored the same Page 188 U. S. 535 interpretation. Thus, in Gibson v. TysonSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Watts 34, chromate of iron was held to be included in a reservation of all minerals. In Hartwell v. CammanSearch
-
the court distinctly repudiating the idea that the term should be confined to metals or metallic ores. In Funk v. HaldemanSearch
-
Pa. 229, and in Gill v. WestonSearch
-
although the act authorizing the lease of mining lands was passed before petroleum was discovered. See also Gird v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Witt, 130 Pa. 235, to natural gas, which was said to be a mineral ferae naturae. In Armstrong v. LakeSearch
-
In Johnston v. HarringtonSearch
-
that stone was a mineral, though it seems inconsistent with the subsequent case, in the same volume, of Wheeler v. SmithSearch
-
cases, adopted the construction that valuable stone passed under the definition of minerals. Said Baron Parke in Rosse v. WainmanSearch
-
This case was followed in Micklethwait v. WinterSearch
-
Exch. 644, in which the same act of Parliament was held to include stone dug from quarries. In Midland Ry. Co. v. CheckleySearch
-
In Midland Ry. Co. v. HaunchwoodSearch
-
L.R. 20 Ch.Div. 552, brick clay was held to be a mineral, and in Hext v. GillSearch
-
in several analogous cases of granite, sandstone, flintstone, and in other similar circumstances. Attorney General v. WelshSearch
-
Bell v. WilsonSearch
-
Tucker v. LingerSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Northern Pacific Ry. Co. v. SoderbergSearch
-
Northern Pacific Railway Company v. SoderbergSearch
-
Colorado Central Mining Co. v. TurckSearch
-
and Press Publishing Co. v. MonroeSearch
-
of the United States. Doolan v. CarrSearch
-
Mullan v. UnitedSearch
-
Midland Ry. Co. v. HaunchwoodSearch
-
Hext v. GillSearch
-
United States v. IronSearch
-
Freezer v. SweeneySearch
-
Gibson v. TysonSearch
-
In Hartwell v. CammanSearch
-
In Funk v. HaldemanSearch
-
Gill v. WestonSearch
-
Gird v. CaliforniaSearch
-
In Armstrong v. LakeSearch
-
of Wheeler v. SmithSearch
-
Rosse v. WainmanSearch
-
Micklethwait v. WinterSearch
-
In Midland Ry. Co. v. CheckleySearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial