Summary

Joseph McKenna Pittsburg Lake Angeline Iron Company v…

Complainant, as well as the defendants, paid out large sums of money under it. All are now estopped to deny its due execution and validity.
* * * * *
'Complainant is entirely without equity. It doubted the correctness of the rule of Clute v. Fisher, and thought that a different rule might some time prevail. It was then its duty to take steps to test the question before permitting defendants to enter into a contest and explorations involving over $100,000. It should at least have informed the defendants of its claim, and given them the opportunity to make a contract with that in view.
Source: Wikisource

Joseph McKenna Pittsburg Lake Angeline Iron Company v…

No ore was known to exist in the bed of the lake until the winter of 1886 and 1887, when it was discovered on territory not owned by plaintiff, but plaintiff was informed of the discovery. Afterwards ore was discovered on its territory. The extent and locality of the ore beds were not exactly known, and negotiations were entered into for pumping out the lake, and ended in a contrace between the parties.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature