This was a suit to establish the complainant’s alleged title to an undivided three-eighths interest in the Gold Bug lode mining claim, and an undivided one-half interest in the Oversight lode mining claim, both of which are situated in the Wolf Creek mining district, Josephine county, Or., and to secure an accounting by the defendants of the ore taken therefrom. The legal title to the mines is confessedly in the defendant Gold Bug Consolidated Gold-Mining Company, by virtue of a conveyance thereof made on February 10, 1899, by the defendant W. S. James, who derived title from one É. A. Jones and wife on the ISth day of July, 1898. The court below in its opinion expressed a doubt whether the complainant ever had any interest in these two mines. We think, however, that the evidence shows that he was jointly interested in them with R. A. Jones, but we are of the opinion that the judgment of the court below is right upon the first ground stated in its opinion. It is undisputed that the complainant and R. A. Jones were jointly interested in a certain group of mines called the “Albany Group,” in the immediate vicinity of which is the Oversight mine. That group comprised the “Albany,” “C. B.,” “Morning Glory,” “Sunset,” “Utica,” “Arthur C.,” “California,” and “Virginia” claims, some of which stood upon the records in the name of the complainant, and some in the name of R. A. Jones. The Oversight was located in the name of the wife of R. A. Jones, to whom and for which she after-wards executed a deed. The Gold Bug mine was acquired by and in the name of R. A. Jones by deed from one Lee, for the joint benefit, as we think the evidence shows, of himself and the complainant. The record title, therefore, to both the Gold Bug and the Oversight stood in the name of R. A. Jones, and of this fact the complainant was well aware, according to his own testimony. Indeed, it appears from his own testimony that R. A. Jones was given the management and control of all of the claims in which they were jointly *962 interested. Jones wrote to the complainant frequently in respect to the claims, and the complainant himself went to them from time to time, occasionally spending considerable time there. In 1897 the complainant and E. A. Jones were desirous of selling all of the claims mentioned, and the defendant James went from Gold Hill, Nev., to look at them. The result was that on the 19th day of June, 1897, E. A. Jones and the complainant gave James a working bond on the Albany group for $25,000, to expire September 19, 1898. That bond was sent by Jones to the complainant for his signature, and it was affixed. In returning the bond to E. A. Jones with his signature affixed, the complainant states in his testimony that he wrote to Jones asking how it was that the Oversight claim was not included, and he says Jones replied by letter that he intended to put the Oversight with the Gold Bug mine, and bond them together to James for $7,000. As a matter of fact, E. A. Jones did give James a working bond covering the Oversight and Gold Bug, by which he agreed to convey the Gold Bug to James for $6,999, and the Oversight for $1, on or before September 19, 1898, subject to the conditions stated in the bond. That the complainant was fully aware of this, and consented thereto, clearly appears from the evidence, and, indeed, from his own testimony. In speaking of the bond of the Albany group, the complainant in his testimony said:

Some question having subsequently arisen between complainant’s counsel and the court in respect to the testimony of the complainant in regard to that matter, the witness answered:

The trial court then asked:

A very large number of letters between, these parties were introduced in evidence, but in none of them is there anything said about any agreement that the Oversight and Gold Bug should not be sold *963 unless the Albany group was. Of these the court below correctly said in its opinion:

Conceding it be true, as testified to by complainant, that there was an agreement between him and it. A. Jones that Jones should not sell the Oversight and Gold Bug claims unless the purchaser also took the Albany group, still it is not pretended that James, who was the purchaser of the mines in question, had any notice whatever of any such agreement, and, as has been said, it is perfectly clear from the evidence in the case that the complainant knew that the title to the Oversight and Gold Bug claims stood of record in the name of It. A. Jones, and that the complainant consented that Jones should bond them to James, which he did. Under such circumstances, we can see no valid ground for permitting the complainant to impeach the conveyance of those claims pursuant to the provisions of the bond. McGahan v. Bank, 156 U. S. 232 , 15 Sup. Ct. 347, 39 L. Ed. 403 ; Thompson v. Bowman. 6 Wall. 318 , 18 L. Ed. 736 ; Young v. Wheeler (C. C.) 34 Fed. 99 ; Van Brunt v. Applegate, 44 N. Y. 544 ; Cox v. McBurney, 2 Sandf. 566 ; Chester v. Dickerson, 54 N. Y. 10 , 13 Am. Rep. 550 ; Greer v. Ferguson, 56 Ark. 324 , 19 S. W. 966 ; Wilson v. Hunter, 14 Wis. 686 . The judgment is affirmed.