Abstracts of Current Decisions on Mines and Mining: May to August, 1917 Page: 69
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
MINES AND MINING OPERATIONS.
becoming uncoupled from the cut of cars and the cut of cars proceed-
ing down grade at a greater rate of speed, the rear car, without the
other car to steady it, was thereby derailed, the jury may infer that the
derailment was the proximate cause of the injury and that it was
brought about by reason of a defective coupling by which the car on
which the miner was riding became uncoupled from the car that was
Fentress Coal & Coke Co. v. Elmore, 240 Fed. 323, p. 330.
INSTRUCTION AS TO REMOTE CAUSES OF INJURY NOT PROPER.
When in an action by a miner for damages for injuries the uncon-
tradicted evidence shows that the only act of negligence that could
be regarded as the proximate cause of the injury was the negligent
operation of a trip of cars that collided with him, the court on the trial
of the cause should not submit instructions to the jury as to other
alleged acts of negligence not in any way contributing to the injury.
Ward v. Liverpool Salt & Coal Co. (West Virginia), 92 Southeastern 92, p. 97.
CONTRACTS RELATING TO OPERATIONS.
SALE OF MINING MACHINERY-FAILURE TO DELIVER-DAMAGES.
The seller of a turbo-compressor or blowing machine made for use
in connection with a coal company's blast furnace can not recover
damages from the buyer for refusal to receive and pay for the blower
where it was not completed and delivered within the time stated in
the contract and where the seller had notice of the particular use
to which it was to be applied and of the buyer's emergency and
where an extension of time by the buyer did not amount to a removal
of the time limit in which the blower was to be delivered.
General Electric Co. v. Chattanooga Coal & Iron Corp., 241 Federal 38, p. 40.
CONTRACT AS TO MINING MACHINERY-OWNERSHIP AND POSSESSION.
A contract was made between the owner of a placer mine and
another by which the latter should take possession of the mine,
furnish machinery and material to work it, extract the gold and
keep a careful account of expenses and receipts. At the end of the
first season the contractee was given the option of enlarging and
continuing his operations on a royalty basis, but if the enterprise was
not profitable the contract was to terminate and an accounting to
be had on the basis of the actual cost of the installation of the mining
.plant, plus the cost of operation for the mining season to be credited
to the contractee, and the gold recovered to be credited to the
owner. If the balance was against the contractee he was to pay the
same to the owner; but if the value of the gold was less than the cost
Here’s what’s next.
This report can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Report.
Thompson, Joseph Wesley. Abstracts of Current Decisions on Mines and Mining: May to August, 1917, report, December 1917; Washington D.C.. (digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc38745/m1/83/: accessed November 20, 2017), University of North Texas Libraries, Digital Library, digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.