Snyder

Nome & Sinook Co. v. Snyder

Bad Law
109 C.C.A. 217·187 F. 385·3 Alaska Fed. 583·1911 U.S. App. LEXIS 4514
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMay 22, 1911No. 1,907California1,803 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Wolverton, J.

(after stating the facts as above).

It is shown by the testimony of Jafet Lindeberg that he, together with Kjellmann, Spring, Southward, and Jernes, formed a partnership called the “Nome Mining & Development Company, Limited, to get mining claims around the vicinity of Nome, Penny river, and outside of that,” and that the claim sought to be established by plaintiff is one of the claims located by this partnership. The notice shows that the “undersigned” have located 100 acres of placer mining ground described as Pocahontas, Querropas, Ratapan, Seneca, and Ticonderoga. Then follows a description which runs around all the claims. The concluding part of. the notice is as follows: “Located 24th day of January, A. D. 1899, by Nome Mining & Development Co., Ltd., Amasa Spring, Jr., General Manager.”

Attached to the notice iá a plat showing the Ticonderoga on the west, next east the Seneca, and east of that the Ratapan, all in square form. The Querropas is still east of the latter, in rectangular form. Each of these are described as containing 20 acres. East of the Querropas, along its northern extremity, is located lot 2, and north of that lot 1, each of which contains 10 acres and is…

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.