UtahRails Mining Law
Index For This Page
This page was last updated on February 8, 2026.
(The focus of this page is brief notes about the lining laws that applied to the mining industry in Utah.)
(Incomplete; research continues...)
Protest and Adverse Claim
In September 1897, in order to prevent his two mining claims, the Apple and Cherry, which were located in Mercur in the Camp Floyd mining district, from being swallowed up by the Brickyard Gold Mining company, Simon F. Mackie began a law suit against that same Brickyard Gold Mining corporation, and E. H. Airis, its president. Mackie, as plaintiff, claimed that the Brickyard company, as defendant, claimed ownership of the Protective Tariff lode, which entirely covered his two claims. He claimed that the defendants had filed an application in the land office for a United States patent on the combined Protective Tariff, Lady May, Vulture and Sullivan lodes and have secured the register on the application." (Salt Lake Herald, September 1, 1897)
(Throughout mining history in Utah, especially in the period 1870 to 1900, mining claims were regularly duplicated, and their boundary lines regularly overlapped. A patent from the U. S. Land Office was always based on an accurate survey by a certified surveyor and usually settled any questions. An application for a patent brought out conflicting claims that needed to be settled in the courts. Occasionally, a patent was issued based on the survey, without consideration of any protest.)
Mackie filed a protest and adverse claim, first in federal court. The federal court denied jurisdiction because the protest concerned mining claims, which were handled by county recorders. Mackie then filed his suit in district court.
The mining company, as defendant, filed questions "demurred" to the court to clarify the law and the law suit itself, and the court continued to ask Mackie, as plaintiff, to clarify his complaint.
In April 1898, an update to the federal lawsuit stated, "Simon F. Mackie vs. Brickyard Gold Mining and Milling company et al.; demurrer to amended bill and exception to amended bill." (Salt Lake Tribune, April 4, 1898)
(The lawsuit continued through the federal system, with both the Court of Appeals (in October 1899), and the Supreme Court agreeing with the lower court's dismissal of the case due to lack of jurisdiction.
Demurrer and Exception
In legal terms, what does the phrase "demurrer to amended bill and exception to amended bill" mean?
AI Response:
In the world of legal jargon, this phrase is essentially a formal way of saying, "I object to the new version of your lawsuit because it’s legally flawed."
To break it down, we have to look at the individual components. These terms are rooted in "Equity" law (historically used in chancery courts) and are less common in modern "Notice Pleading" states, though they still pop up in jurisdictions like Virginia or in specialized maritime/federal cases.
==========
1. The Definitions
Here is the "translation" of the specific terms:
Amended Bill: A "Bill" is an old-school term for a Complaint (the document that starts a lawsuit). An "Amended Bill" is simply the second (or third) version of that complaint, usually updated after the first version was challenged or new facts emerged.
Demurrer: This is a legal "So what?" It’s a challenge that says, "Even if everything you say in this document is true, it doesn't matter because there is no legal basis for a lawsuit." It attacks the legal sufficiency of the claim.
Exception: This is a more surgical objection. While a demurrer attacks the whole claim, an exception usually targets specific parts of the document that are irrelevant, scandalous, or "insufficient" (meaning the plaintiff didn't provide enough detail as required by court rules).
==========
2. Putting it Together
When a defendant files a "Demurrer to Amended Bill and Exception to Amended Bill," they are telling the judge:
The Demurrer Part: "Your Honor, this updated lawsuit still fails to state a crime or a civil wrong that the law can fix. You should dismiss it entirely."
The Exception Part: "Furthermore, even if you don't dismiss it, specific paragraphs in this new version are improper, vague, or shouldn't be there, and they should be struck from the record."
3. Why use both?
Lawyers often use this "belt and braces" approach to cover all their bases.
If the judge thinks the lawsuit has some merit, the Demurrer might fail.
However, the judge might still agree with the Exception and force the plaintiff to clean up the messy or irrelevant parts of their filing.
###