Woodman v. Erikson
District Court, D. Alaska
Plaintiff brings an action in ejectment to recover possession of a mining claim which he claims to have located on the 1st day of August, 1913. The defendant by his affirmative answer claims to have located the same ground on the 30th day of June, 1913, by virtue of a valid discovery of placer gold on that day made by Matilda Wales as the agent and attorney in fact for defendant, and on said 30th day of June the said Wales, attorney in fact, posted a notice of location of…
Read the full summary
Plaintiff brings an action in ejectment to recover possession of a mining claim which he claims to have located on the 1st day of August, 1913. The defendant by his affirmative answer claims to have located the same ground on the 30th day of June, 1913, by virtue of a valid discovery of placer gold on that day made by Matilda Wales as the agent and attorney in fact for defendant, and on said 30th day of June the said Wales, attorney in fact, posted a notice of location of said placer claim designated as No. 1 on Chicken Creek, a tributary of Glacier creek, in the Shushana district of the…
1Opinion of the Court
BROWN, District Judge.
All the material facts in the said affirmative answer being admitted by the demurrer, it seems that defendant made a valid location of said mining claim on June 30, 1913, making a valuable discovery of placer gold, and performed all the other necessary acts of location, except that the said power of attorney was not recorded until August 17th, some 17 days after the plaintiff alleges that he entered upon said ground and located the same.
In the case of Likaits v. Johnson, 5 Alaska, 63, and the case of Sutherland v. Purdy, recently tried in this court, it was held that a…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Drake v. BranderTexas Supreme Court · 1852
- Likaits v. JohnsonDistrict Court, D. Alaska · 1914