Shea

Shea v. Nilima

Good Law
133 F. 209·2 Alaska Fed. 307·66 C.C.A. 263·1904 U.S. App. LEXIS 4400
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitOctober 10, 1904No. 1,012California2,487 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Hawley, J.

(after making the foregoing statement). It will be our endeavor to confine the discussion in this case to as few points as possible, and at the same time to cover all material questions that have been properly raised and presented by counsel. It may be said generally that the evidence of Nilima, and the facts set forth in the amended, supplementary, and substituted complaint, make out at least a prima facie case on the part of the appellees; and, unless the legal objections raised thereto by appellants destroy the force and effect thereof, there is enough in the record to sustain the action of the court below in issuing the injunction. Some of the reasons which sustain this view will be hereafter referred to.

The agreement of partnership, as alleged and proven, does not fall within the character of contracts required by the Alaska Code to be in writing in order to be valid. The agreement does not come within the provisions of the statute of frauds. The rule is well settled that an agreement between two or more persons to explore the public domain, and discover and locate a mining claim or claims, *314 for the joint benefit of the contracting parties, does not fall within 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.