Williams v. Mountaineer Gold Mining Co.

Upon further consideration of this cause in Bank, we are satisfied with the conclusion *136 which was reached by Department One in its opinion filed November 8, 1893, and for the reasons stated in said opinion the judgment and order appealed from are affirmed.

De Haven, J., did not participate in the foregoing decision.

The following is the opinion of Department One-above referred to:

Temple, C.—The general nature of this case is well stated in the first finding of facts, which is as follows:

Judgment was entered in favor of plaintiffs and sustaining the lien of Johns, but against the claim of the appellant, who appeals from the judgment and an order refusing him a new trial.

It. will be seen that there are some thirty claimants of liens upon the mine for labor performed mostly in the tunnel, but also in a variety of other employments about the mine, and that the work was done at different periods.

Appellant commenced to furnish materials for the construction of the mill, tramway, boarding-house and other buildings July 21,1890, and filed his claim of lien on February 2,1891. Two of the plaintiffs commenced work before he filed his claim of lien, but all the others commenced…