Krampitz

Alaska Homestake Mining Co. v. Krampitz

Good Law
276 F. 82·5 Alaska Fed. 62·1921 U.S. App. LEXIS 2046
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitOctober 10, 1921No. 3641California1,723 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Hunt, J.

(after stating the facts as above).

The principal question involves the legal effect of the notice posted by the mining company notifying all persons interested that it would not be liable for wages of employes of the lessee. The statute under which the lien is claimed provides (section 2) that when two or more claims are contiguous and owned or claimed by the same person and are worked through a common shaft or at one mill, then all mining claims, lodes, or deposits so owned and worked, and all roads, flumes, pipe lines, “buildings, structures, superstructures and' machinery which is a fixture thereto thereon and used in connection with the working thereof,” shall be considered one mine.

Section 5 provides that all work done on or upon a mining claim at the instance of any person in privity with or having the right of possession or privilege of working or mining thereon from the owner or his authorized agent, in-developing, mining, or doing other class of work in min *66 ing such mining claim, or the separation or reduction to a commercial value of the minerals therein or extracted therefrom, shall be deemed to have been done at the instance of the owner, and the owner’s…

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.