Hamilton

Hamilton v. Delhi Mining Co.

Good Law
118 Cal. 148·1897 Cal. LEXIS 749·50 P. 378
Supreme Court of CaliforniaSeptember 13, 1897Sac. No. 210California1,846 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Fleet, J.

Action to enforce laborers’ liens against the mine and mining property of the defendant, Peach Blow Consolidated Gold Mining Company.

There are cross-appeals, both upon the judgment-roll, without a bill of exceptions, the plaintiffs appealing from a part only of *150 the judgment, and the defendants Baldwin and the intervenor jointly appealing from the whole thereof.

1. The last-mentioned appeal will be first considered. The material facts involved in this appeal are these: In December, 1894, George W. Baldwin, Sr., owning the Bast Orleans and Baldwin, or Gracie, locations, and George W. Baldwin, Jr., owning the Morning Star and Birthday locations, each made a separate contract with one George Senn, by which they agreed to sell to Senn their respective claims, with the right in the latter, or his assigns, to work them during the life of the contracts; before doing any work, Senn organized the defendant, Peach Blow Consolidated Gold Mining Company, and assigned said contracts and his rights thereunder to that corporation. The corporation in April, 1895, started in to develop the claims, working them as one mine or claim; its work consisted in enlarging, timbering, and sinking…

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.