Engelstad

Engelstad v. Dufresne

Good Law
1 Alaska Fed. 798·116 F. 582·54 C.C.A. 38·1902 U.S. App. LEXIS 4363
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMay 5, 1902No. 768California4,158 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Ross, J.

This was a suit for the specific performance of the following written instrument, executed by the respective parties on the 19th day of January, 1899, at St. Michaels. Alaska:

The bill sets out the contract in hsec verba, and alleges that the complainant, prior to its execution, discovered gold upon the claims of which he is stated in the contract to be the owner, and located the same under and in pursuance of the laws of the United States and of the local rules and regulations of the mining district in which they are situated, ever since which time he has been the owner and in the possession thereof, and engaged in the operation of the same; and that the defendant is, and has been during the same time, the owner of a claim known as “No. 10 on Dexter Creek,” having theretofore discovered gold thereon, and having theretofore located the same under and in pursuance of the same laws, rules, and regulations, and having during the same time been in the undisputed possession thereof, operating the same for mining purposes, and extracting therefrom large quantities of gold. It is alleged that prior *801 to the commencement of the suit the complainant demanded in writing that the…

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.