Skym

Skym v. Weske Consolidated Co.

Good Law
1896 Cal. LEXIS 1101·5 Cal. Unrep. 551·47 P. 116
Supreme Court of CaliforniaDecember 18, 1896Sac. No. 167California1,987 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Haynes, J.

This action was brought by the plaintiffs to foreclose their several alleged) liens for labor performed by them, respectively, upon the Weske Consolidated Placer Mine, of which all the defendants were alleged to be reputed owners, and that defendant Muir was the person in charge, and by whom they were employed. Muir answered, alleging that at all the times covered by the alleged claims of the several plaintiffs he was and is the sole owner of said mining property. He admitted the employment of the several plaintiffs, the length of time they had labored in the mine, and, except as to plaintiff Skym, the rate of wages agreed upon. He alleged, however, that the labor performed by the plaintiffs, respectively, was under a special agreement, a copy of which was attached to his answer, and which reads as follows:

This agreement was signed by plaintiff Skym under date of April 15, 1893, and by plaintiff Jones under date of December 21, 1893, but does not show that it was signed by plaintiff Bowen. This agreement was set out in the finding made by the court, and in relation to said agreement the court found that the defendant William Muir did not perform the conditions of said agreement,…

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.