Belsea

Belsea v. Tindall

Good Law
111 C.C.A. 244·190 F. 440·3 Alaska Fed. 625·1911 U.S. App. LEXIS 4445
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitSeptember 5, 1911No. 1,849California3,265 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Morrow, J.

(after stating the facts as above).

The question in the court below was whether the defendants had worked the claim in accordance with the terms of the lease. The lease provided certain specific directions for working the claim, and the question was whether these directions had been followed by the lessees. The lease required that the lessees should “work the claim mine fashion, starting and lower line working the same with a straight face, at least one hundred feet wide, or more if required, to get all pay dirt as low as two cents per pan.” To make these instructibns more certain and definite the lease stated them. “In other words,” that is to say, the lessees were required “to good and economical mining so far as to take out the greatest amount of mineral with due regard to the development and preservation of the same as a workable mine.”

Whether the defendants worked the mine in accordance with these directions the evidence was conflicting. It was therefore a question of fact for the jury to determine upon the weight of evidence under appropriate instructions by the court. The errors assigned relate to these instructions. The court instructed the jury fully as to the issues…

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.