Meyers

Meyers v. Pratt

Good Law
167 C.C.A. 109·255 F. 765·4 Alaska Fed. 724·1919 U.S. App. LEXIS 1521
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitFebruary 3, 1919No. 3160California1,132 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Ross, J.

The appellant, as plaintiff in the court below, brought this suit, alleging her possession and ownership of three certain placer mining claims about eight miles northwest of the town of Juneau, Alaska, called Jim D., Jim M., and Jim O’D., respectively, containing an area of about 60 acres, and alleging that the defendants to the suit asserted some claim thereto while having no right, title, or interest therein, and asking that they be required to set forth the nature of their claim and that the plaintiff’s title to the property be quieted.

The answer of the defendant Pratt put in issue both the alleged ownership and possession of the plaintiff, and alleged his own ownership and possession of all of the land described in the amended complaint, by virtue of an entry made by him under sanction of the government of the United States long prior to the time of the placer locations under which the plaintiff asserts title, and the answer of the other defendants alleged the ownership and possession by the defendant L. H. Smith of a specifically described portion of the premises claimed by the plaintiff. The suit, therefore, was one simply to quiet the plaintiff’s alleged title, and was…

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.