Tornanses

Tornanses v. Melsing

Good Law
1 Alaska Fed. 639·106 F. 775·1901 U.S. App. LEXIS 3619
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitFebruary 11, 1901Nos. 634, 636California9,201 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Ross, J.

The proceedings now before the court in the above-entitled cases grow out of the alleged disobedience by one Alexander McKenzie of certain writs of supersedeas issued out of this court upon the order of Honorable William W. Morrow, one of its judges. They have been argued and submitted together, atnd will be so considered. Each case originated in the United States district court for the Second division of the district of Alaska, of which Arthur H. Noyes is the judge, George V. Borchsenius the clerk, and C. E. Dickey a deputy clerk. Placer-mining claim known as “No. 10 Above Discovery,” on Anvil creek, a tributary to Snake river, was the subject of controversy in the action of Melsing et al. against Tornanses, and placer mining claim “No. 2 Below Discovery,” on the same creek, was the subject of contention in the action of Rogers against Kjellman. Both claims aré situated within the Cape Nome mining district of Alaska. The act of congress under which Judge Noyes \yas appointed was approved June 6, 1900 ( 31 Stat. 321 ). In its fourth section it is provided that “the judge designated to preside over division numbered two (within which division is the Cape Nome mining district) shall…

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.