Ames

Ames v. Sullivan

Good Law
149 C.C.A. 192·235 F. 880·4 Alaska Fed. 426·1916 U.S. App. LEXIS 2232
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitSeptember 5, 1916No. 2682California786 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Gilbert, J.

In an action of ejectment the plaintiff alleged that he was the owner of mining claim No. 32 above Allen’s Discovery on Kougarok river, Alaska, by virtue of a location made in January, 1902, and that in February, 1912, the defendant wrongfully ousted him. The defendant alleged that he was in the possession of a mining claim known as the Kshunti Fraction, which had been lo-' cated on July 25, 1903, and that, if the plaintiff’s mining claim overlaps the said Kshunti Fraction in whole or in part, the overlap is junior in time and inferior in right to the defendant’s title, and the defendant disclaimed any right to any portion of the premises described in the complaint except that which may be found to overlap the Kshunti Fraction. The jury found for the plaintiff, and judgment was entered in his favor for the possession of the claim described in the complaint. To review that judgment the defendant brings this writ of error.

It is contended that the trial court erred in admitting in evidence a letter written in 1912 by one Johnson to Windquist, the plaintiff’s predecessor in interest. The letter stated that the writer had been on claim 32 and had done some work, but that he had left…

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.