Peterson

Peterson v. Beggs

Good Law
1915 Cal. App. LEXIS 492·26 Cal. App. 760·148 P. 541
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 15, 1915Civ. No. 1209.California1,725 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Shields, J.

Plaintiff prosecuted this action to recover for services rendered' as a watchman or keeper of a . mining property known as the Kate Hardy Mine. He was employed by the defendant, John W. Morrell, but alleging that all of the defendants were mining partners, claims that they were jointly liable as such for the value of his services. Plaintiff recovered judgment. An attachment was issued in the case which defendants later moved to vacate. This is an appeal from the judgment and an order refusing to dissolve the attachment. The sole ground of attack upon the judgment ’ is that there is no evidence to support it. This appears to be a fact.

On July 8, 1909, one Tyler Dudley appears to have been the owner of the Kate Hardy Mine. On that day he entered into a contract by which he agreed to sell the mine to defendant Will M. Beggs. Beggs having possession of the mine under a previous contract, retained it. under this agreement and on the thirteenth day of July, 1909, entered into an agreement with the defendants Morrell which seems to be decisive of this case. This agreement recites that a number of mines and mining properties belonging to the Morrells had been conveyed to Beggs, and that…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.