Boyle v. Mountain Key Mining Co.
New Mexico Supreme Court
Appeal, from a judgment for defendant, from the Fifth Judicial District Court, Socorro County. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. The contract was entire it is true, but it included in its terms only such services as were properly in the line of the duties of a superintendent. Even if he performed other work for the company, that can not affect the construction of the contract itself.
Read the full summary
Appeal, from a judgment for defendant, from the Fifth Judicial District Court, Socorro County. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. The contract was entire it is true, but it included in its terms only such services as were properly in the line of the duties of a superintendent. Even if he performed other work for the company, that can not affect the construction of the contract itself. The contract is plain, and contemplates only services which the master.rightly finds are entitled to a lien. Capron v. Strout, 11 Nev. 304; Mining Co. v. Cullens, 104 U. S. 176. Such statutes are…
1Opinion of the Court
SMITH, O. J.
—This action was instituted in the district court for Grant county on the tenth day of December, 1892, by John Boyle, Jr., the complainant, against the Mountain Key Mining Company, a corporation; and other persons, herein designated as “Charles Silva et al.,” were also made defendants, they claiming an interest in the Mountain Key Mine, upon which complainant sought by his bill to establish a lien for work and labor performed thereon, as provided by section 1520 et seq. of the Compiled Laws of New Mexico. Prior to the institution of this action, to wit, on the twelfth day of…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Davis v. AlvordSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
- Mining Co. v. CullinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1881
- Barnard v. McKenzieSupreme Court of Colorado · 1878
- Edgar v. SalisburySupreme Court of Missouri · 1852
- Nelson v. WithrowMissouri Court of Appeals · 1883
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Fleming-Gilchrist Construction Co. v. McGonigleSupreme Court of Missouri · 1935