Cascaden

Cascaden v. Dunbar

Good Law
157 F. 62·2 Alaska Fed. 835·84 C.C.A. 566·1907 U.S. App. LEXIS 4777
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitOctober 28, 1907No. 1,312California703 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Ross, J.

(after stating the facts as above).

The court below found the making of the alleged contract by the plaintiff with Bennett; that it was oral; that at that time Bennett, Scott, and Dunbar were general partners and then engaged in freighting, and immediately thereafter "in locating, acquiring, and working placer mines” in the vicinity of Fairbanks. The evidence shows without conflict that in the early part of December, 1902, the plaintiff made the locations set out in the complaint for the defendants Bennett, Scott, and Dunbar, and prepared the notices of location thereof, and gave them to Bennett for recordation, and that Scott and Dunbar, as well as Bennett, had actual notice of the plaintiff’s action in locating the claims; and the court below so expressly found. But the court also found that "neither Scott nor Dunbar made any agreement of any kind with the plaintiff Cascaden, nor gave him any power or authority to locate mines for them, and the evidence does not show that Bennett had any power, as partner or otherwise, to employ him for that purpose.” Other findings of the court below are as follows:

The decree of the court below evidently proceeded upon the theory that…

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.