Legal Opinion

Tjosevig v. Donohoe

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided February 2, 1920No. 3360PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtGilbert, Circuit Judge

(after stating the facts as above).

It is contended that a trust relationship between the appellees and the appellants was neither pleaded nor proved, and the statute of frauds is invoked. The statute of frauds is complied with in the fact that the appellants held the appellees’ interest in trust under a contract which was in writing and was signed by the appellants, and which created the trust. It provided that the appellees, after the conclusion of the litigation, should receive from the appellants a deed of a specified undivided interest in the mining claims. It' was competent, either by a…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Garrett v. ChristopherTexas Supreme Court · 1889
  2. Williams v. PaineSupreme Court of the United States · 1898
  3. Holland v. RogersSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1878
  4. Wise v. WattsCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1917
  5. Lindblom v. RocksCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1906

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. De Fonce Construction Co. v. City of MiamiCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1958
  2. Harold I. Richardson v. A. T. Van DolahCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1970
  3. De Fonce Construction Company, Inc. v. City Of MiamiCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1958
  4. Holman v. TjosevigDistrict Court, D. Alaska · 1922

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API