Lindblom

after stating the case as above, delivered the opinion of the court.

That the verbal contract as to Claim No. 1 Below was made is well sustained by the testimony, not only of the *516 defendant in error, but by that of other witnesses, and in fact it is not denied by any of the plaintiffs in error. Lindblom and Lindeberg both testified, not that no such contract was made, but that they did not remember it, and the other plaintiff in error was not called as a witness. The testimony shows, moreover, that, after the execution of the release, Lindblom and Lindeberg acknowledged their liability to the defendant in error on the contract for work on No. 1 Below and at different dates thereafter promised to settle with him, and .that it was not until three years thereafter that Lindblom denied liability to the defendant in error, which he did by saying that he had been advised not to settle with him. The work of developing claims was a work in which the defendant in error was evidently skilled. It is not denied that on the day on which his alleged oral agreement was made he went to Claim No. 1 Below with seven or eight men, opened it up, and soon thereafter discovered a rich pay streak.…