Legal Opinion

Nome & Sinook Co. v. Snyder

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided May 22, 1911No. 1,907PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWolverton, District Judge

(after stating the facts as above).

It is shown by the testimony of Jafet Lindeberg that he, together with Kjellmann, Spring, Southward, and Jernes, formed a partnership called the “Nome Mining & Development Company, Limited, to get mining claims around the vicinity of Nome, Penny river, and outside of that,” and that the claim sought to be established by plaintiff is one of the claims located by this partnership. The notice shows that the “undersigned” have located 100 acres of placer mining ground described as Pocahontas, Querropas, Ratapan, Seneca, and Ticonderoga. Then follows a…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Mitchell v. ClineCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
  2. Kirk v. MeldrumSupreme Court of Colorado · 1901
  3. Cook v. KlonosCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1908
  4. Durant v. CorbinU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Washington · 1899

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. United States Ex Rel. United States Borax Co. v. IckesCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1938
  2. Duffield v. San Francisco Chemical Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1913
  3. Chanslor-Canfield Midway Oil Co. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1920
  4. United States v. Brookshire Oil Co.District Court, S.D. California · 1917
  5. Rundle v. Republic Cement CorporationArizona Supreme Court · 1959

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

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

Powered by the Exa API