Donohoe

Donohoe v. Trinity Consolidated Gold & Silver Mining Co.

Good Law
113 Cal. 119·1896 Cal. LEXIS 753·45 P. 259
Supreme Court of CaliforniaJune 4, 1896Sac. No. 30California1,042 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Henshaw, J.

Appeal from the judgment and from the order denying a new trial.

Plaintiff's action was to foreclose a lien for the value of labor performed upon the mining claim of the Trinity Mining Company. The bank was made defendant as claiming some interest in the**property, which interest, it was averred and not denied, was subordinate to plaintiff's lien. The mining company suffered default. The bank answered, admitting all of plaintiff's allegations, saving that it denied plaintiff’s employment, his labor, its value, and nonpayment.

The labor, its value, and nonpayment were proved, and no question arises upon any of these matters. Plaintiff had alleged that he was employed as a miner by one Bernard McCourt, the duly authorized foreman and agent of the mining company. Upon the trial he undertook to establish this by proving that McCourt was appointed foreman by one Champion, who was the superintendent in charge under authority of the Trinity Consolidated Company. This company, it is admitted by the pleadings, was incorporated under the laws of the territory of Utah, with its principal place of business in Ogden. The admissibility and sufficiency of the evidence to establish these…

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.