Ames

Ames v. Farrelly

Good Law
121 F. 820·2 Alaska Fed. 31·58 C.C.A. 258·1903 U.S. App. LEXIS 4690
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitFebruary 2, 1903No. 860California953 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Gilbert, J.

One Joseph Henry was the owner of an undivided one-half interest in three mining claims in the Kougrock mining district, Alaska, known as claim No. 14 on Harris creek, No. 5 on Dahl creek, and No. 9 on Quartz creek. The other one-half interest was owned jointly by the plaintiffs in error, but the legal title thereto stood in the name of D. J. Horgan. In the mining season of 1901 the defendant in error and Frank Petrick performed work and labor on these claims at the instance of Henry at the agreed wages of $10 per day, and later at $6 per day. Henry agreed with them to pay for his half of the work so done by conveying to them a one-fourth interest in the Harris creek claim, and he informed them that F. H. Ames would pay for the other half. For one-half of the work so done on the three claims, the defendant in error, on behalf of himself and as assignee of Petrick and others, brought an action in a justice court to recover $997; alleging in his complaint that the work was done at the instance of the plaintiffs in error. He obtained a judgment for $762 and costs. The plaintiffs in error took an appeal to the District Court, where the cause was tried before the court without a jury.…

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.