erals pertaining thereto, subject to the rent of the landlord as well before as after such ores or minerals have been separated from the freehold; and he may recover the ores or minerals, or the value thereof, from any miner digging upon his range with notice of his claim. This provision obviously secures to the discoverer the right to develop the range or crevice to the limits of the land on which he has the privilege to mine, and vests in him the title to whatever ores or minerals he may find therein. But how does the provision strengthen the claim or aid the rights of the plaintiffs upon the facts of this case? It is said that the ores or minerals found at the place where the defendants were at work pertained to the Watkins range or works, or, in other words, that they were taken from that range; but how is that fact ascertained and determined? By the plaintiff's attempting to trace their range several hundred feet around through the adjoining land of Hugh Jones on the east, thence back onto the land of Mr. Dean. But is it at all probable that the parties intended or supposed when the lease was entered into, that any such rights were conferred by it? The Watkins range, as then known, had a well defined course in a south-east direction; and we must presume that the parties knew that fact and contracted with reference to it. And it is quite incredible that they then understood that the right to work the Watkins range, carried with it the right to follow that range to the east line of the forty, and upon permission being obtained, to trace the range through the adjoining tract; and also the further right to follow the range back onto the north-east corner of the Dean tract. The verbal lease should be read in the light of surrounding circumstances; and if it is, the claim of the plaintiffs will be found unsupported by all the facts and probabilities of the case. If the plaintiffs, while developing their mine on the Dean land, had actually traced the Watkins range to the point where the defendants were at work and established the identity of the defendants' diggings with the Watkins range, a different question would be presented. There would then be ground for claiming that the ores and minerals mined by the defendants belonged to the plaintiffs and pertained to their range. In this remark, however, we do not wish to be understood either as affirming or disaffirming the correctness of the theory of the circuit court as stated in the conclusions of law. That theory goes upon the assumption that there was a prior discovery of the range or vein on Jones' land while the Watkins range was abandoned and unworked which restricted the rights of the plaintiffs. This may be so; still our judgment is not placed upon that ground. We think the lease of the Watkins range only gave the right to mine upon that range to the east line of the tract. We have not overlooked the fact that the Watkins range was what is described by the witnesses as a "flat opening," the ores being found in a horizontal instead of vertical seams. The limits or borders of this opening on the north are not known, and have never been traced. Possibly the opening may extend to and include the vein where the defendants are working. But whether it does or not is doubtful and undetermined. The plaintiffs do not pretend they have traced the Watkins range by drifting north on the Dean tract up to the defendants' works. They claim that they have established a physical connection between the ores in the works and their own by following the Watkins range around through the diggings on Jones' land back again onto Dean's land. But we have already said that the lease of the Watkins range terminated at the east line of the tract, and carried no rights beyond that point. This is the controlling question in the case, and renders a consideration of the other exceptions unnecessary. By the Court: The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed. 1. A mortgage described "all the property owned by the Montana Flume and Mining Company" at and near Alder Gulch, etc., in section 10. The property of the company was situate in sections 10, 11, 13 and 14: Held, that only that property in section 10 was covered. Largey v. Sedman, 3 Mont. 473. 2. Description in ejectment, of premises as "limestone quarry containing about three acres." Clement v. Youngman, 40 Pa. St. 341; Post EJECTMENT; Youngman v. Linn, 2 M. R. 443. 3. Incomplete description in mortgage may be supplied in the complaint followed by parol evidence. Began v. O'Reilly, 32 Cal. 11. 4. The word "North" in boundary line of claim shown by parol to mean the magnetic meridian. Jenny Lind Co. v. Bower, 11 Cal. 194; Post Evi DENCE. 5. Courses in a deed are to be run according to the magnetic meridian. Wells v. Jackson Co. 47 N. H. 261. 6. Description of lead range held insufficient. Cox v. Groshong, 1 Pinn. 307; Post FORCIBLE ENTRY. 7. Description as the "Heathcock Range," controlled by mention of government subdivisions. Ross v. Heathcock, 3 M. R. 404. 8. Description of Quartz Mill by its name held sufficient. Tibbetts v. Moore, 23 Cal. 208; Post LIEN. 9. Deed of Lode by one of its names carries the vein, where it is located under two names and held by same grantor: Phillpotts v. Blasdel, supra, affirmed; Weill v. Lucerne Co. 3 M. R. 372. 10. Description required in Location Certificate under U. S. Mining Acts. Faxon v. Barnard, 2 McCr. 44; Post LOCATION. 11. Description is good where the monuments when ascertained by parol evidence, identify the claim. Meyers v. Farq ahrson, 3 M. R. 217. 12. Sufficient call for permanent objects or natural monuments in Location Certificate under the Act of Congress of 1872. Jupiter Co. v. Bodie Co. 7 Saw. 112; Post DISCOVERY. 13. In description, subsisting and true monuments control course and distance; calling for "stump" as a post in a mining record. Pollard v. Shively, 2 M. R. 229. BAIRD ET AL. V. WILLIAMSON ET AL. (15 C. B. N. S. 376. Common Pleas, Eng. 1863.) Servitude of lower mine. The owner of a mine at the higher level has a right to work his whole mine, in the manner usual and proper for getting out the minerals; and is not liable for any water which flows by gravitation into the adjoining mine from works so conducted. But he has no right by pumping or otherwise to be an active agent in sending water from his mine into the adjoining mine. This was an action by the owners of a mine against those of an adjoining mine for so working as to flood the mine of the plaintiffs. 2 The first count of the declaration stated, that, before and at the time of the committing of the grievances by the defendants, as thereinafter in that count mentioned, the plaintiff's were possessed of a certain ironstone mine lying and being in a certain vein or seam of ironstone called the Red Shagg ironstone seam [which was a stratum of such a nature as to allow water to percolate and pass through it, as the defendants then well knew]. And the defendants before and at the time aforesaid were also possessed of certain ironstone mines lying and being in the same vein or seam near and adjoining to the said mine of the plaintiffs, but being on a higher level than the said mine of the plaintiffs, so that the water introduced into the said vein or seam in the defendants' said mines would run down from the same and pass into the plaintiffs' said mine from the said mines of the defendants, the stratum or floor on which the said vein, seam and mines lay being impervious to water, and by means thereof, and of the dip or inclination thereof, preventing such water from escaping deeper into the earth or otherwise than into the plaintiffs' said mine, as the defendants then [also] well knew; yet that the defendants, intending to escape the expense of themselves raising to the surface of the earth, the water next 1 Att'y Gen. v. Birmingham, 4 Kay & J. 542; Clegg v. Dearden, 12 Q. B. 576; Post DRAINAGE; Locust Co. v. Gorrell, 9 Phila. 247; Post DRAINAGE. 2 The words within the brackets were, after the demurrers were disposed of, struck out, and those in the foot-notes inserted in the various parts of the pleadings, by arrangement between the parties; and the second plea and the demurrer thereto were struck out of the record. thereinafter mentioned, and to throw that expense upon the plaintiffs, by means of certain pumping engines and of certain cruts or openings made by them between the said stratum of ironstone and divers lower strata in the earth, in which large quantities of water arose, and in divers whereof the defendants were then working, or preparing to work the mines, wrongfully introduced and threw into their said first mentioned mines great quantities of water, arising in and coming from the said lower strata, and such water ran down from such mines of the defendants to the boundary of the [plaintiffs' portion of the said stratum of ironstone],' and passed into and through the same and into the said mine of the plaintiffs,by means whereof the plaintiffs were hindered and prevented from working their said mine so conveniently and profitably as they otherwise might and would have done, and were put to great expense in pumping and raising the said water from their said mine to the surface of the earth. The second count stated, that, before and at the time of the committing of the grievances by the defendants as thereinafter in that count mentioned, the plaintiffs were possessed of a certain, other ironstone mine lying and being in a certain vein or seam of ironstone called the Red Mine ironstone seam [which was a stratum of such a mature as to allow water to percolate and pass through it, as the defendants then well knew]; and the defendants before and at the time last aforesaid were also possessed of certain other ironstone mines lying and being in the same vein or seam near and adjoining to the said last mentioned mine of the plaintiffs, but being on a higher level than the said last mentioned mine of the plaintiffs, so that water introduced into the said last mentioned vein or seam in the defendants' said last mentioned mines would run down from the same and pass into the plaintiffs' said last mentioned mine from the said last mentioned mines of the defendants, the stratum or floor on which the said last mentioned vein, seam, and mines lay being impervious to water, and by means thereof, and of the dip or inclination thereof, preventing such water from escaping deeper into the earth or otherwise than into the plaintiffs' said last mentioned mine, as the defendants [also] then well knew. Yet that the defendants, 'Said mine. |