Wakeman v. Norton
Supreme Court of Colorado
Appeal from the District Court of Dolores County. On February 21, 1893, William B. Norton commenced this action against Fenno Wakeman in the district court of Dolores county.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court of Dolores County. On February 21, 1893, William B. Norton commenced this action against Fenno Wakeman in the district court of Dolores county. On May 16, 1893, an amended complaint was filed, upon which the cause was tried, wherein it is, inter alia, averred that from March 1, 1887, until January 4, 1893, the plaintiff was the owner and in the actual occupation and possession of the Zona K. lode mining claim, situate in the Pioneer mining district, county of Dolores, state of Colorado, describing the same by metes and bounds; that during that time the defendant…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Goddabd
The specifications of error are numerous, but the important objections they present may be included in the following questions: First, was the action rightly prosecuted in the name of the plaintiff ? Second, was the evidence introduced by plaintiff sufficient to show a valid location of the Zona K. claim, and prima facie ownership by him of the ground from which the ore was taken ? Third, did the court err in giving and modifying certain instructions defining the law relative to apex rights ?
Upon the trial of the cause the defendant undertook to show that the plaintiff was not the real party…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Iron Silver Mining Co. v. Elgin Mining & Smelting Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1886
- Armstrong v. LowerSupreme Court of Colorado · 1882
- Duggan v. DaveySupreme Court Of The Territory Of Dakota · 1886
- Iron Silver Mining Co. v. CampbellSupreme Court of Colorado · 1892
3Cited by10 opinions
- Calhoun Gold Mining Co. v. Ajax Gold Mining Co.Supreme Court of Colorado · 1899
- Brewster v. ShoemakerSupreme Court of Colorado · 1900
- Hukill v. McGinnisSupreme Court of Colorado · 1921
- Whittaker v. OttoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1967
- Brugger v. Lee YimCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1936
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.