Bailey v. Bond
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
In Error to the Circuit Court of tbe United States for the District of Washington.
1Opinion of the Court
KNOWLES, District Judge.
S. S. Bailey, plaintiff in error, commenced this action against the defendant in error to recover of' him the sum of $251,250. The complaint sets forth, in form, two causes of action. In the first cause of action it is set forth that John J. Hennessy, William M. Hennessy, John L. Seaton, Frank Flint, and John M. McGuigan were the owners of five certain mining claims situate in West Kootenai district, in the province of British Columbia, in what is known as the “Kaslo-Slocan Mining Region”; that on the 18th day of January, A. D. 1892, plaintiff and. *407defendant entered…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Sullivan v. . SullivanNew York Court of Appeals · 1876
- Burlington & Missouri River Railroad v. BoestlerSupreme Court of Iowa · 1864
- Friess v. . RiderNew York Court of Appeals · 1862
- Redfield v. Utica & Syracuse Rail RoadNew York Supreme Court · 1851
- Texas & St. L. Ry. Co. v. RustUnited States Circuit Court · 1883
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Rand v. MorseCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1923
- Nakdimen v. BakerCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1940
- Hulet v. PayneCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1922