Tornanses

Tornanses v. Melsing

Good Law
1 Alaska Fed. 708·109 F. 710·47 C.C.A. 596·1901 U.S. App. LEXIS 4241
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMay 17, 1901No. 634California1,331 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Gilbert, J.

This case comes before the court on appeal from an order of the district court of Alaska, Second division, *709 made on July 23, 1900, appointing a receiver of a placer mine, with instructions to the receiver to work the mine, and take the gold therefrom, and with an injunction to the appellant against interfering with the receiver’s possession or working or operating the mining property. The record in the case has been carefully considered and reviewed by this court in Re McKenzie, in the present case, and in the case of Kjellman v. Rogers, 45 C.C.A. 615 , 106 F. 775 . It is unnecessary here to repeat what is there set forth. It is sufficient to advert to the fact that the bill alleges that on March 11, 1899, the appellee Melsing discovered the placer mining claim in controversy, which is described as “Claim No. 10, above discovery on Anvil Creek,” a tributary to Snake river, in the Cape Nome mining district, Alaska, and that he thereupon duly located said claim, and that on May 1, 1899, the appellant wrongfully took possession of the said claim, and ejected the said Melsing therefrom, and proceeded to work said mine with a large force of men, and to take the gold therefrom. Both…

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.