Bayne v. Whistler
District Court, D. Alaska
Plaintiff and defendant, from the year 1898 up till 1905, were closely associated as friends and business associates. The plaintiff, being an older and less vigorous man than the defendant, was in his and their business matters accustomed to rely much on the judgment and advice of Whistler, the defendant. The defendant, during part o-f this period, kept the plaintiff’s books of account.
Read the full summary
Plaintiff and defendant, from the year 1898 up till 1905, were closely associated as friends and business associates. The plaintiff, being an older and less vigorous man than the defendant, was in his and their business matters accustomed to rely much on the judgment and advice of Whistler, the defendant. The defendant, during part o-f this period, kept the plaintiff’s books of account. The two held jointly mining claims in the Kougarok mining district, as well as in the Cape Nome district, Alaska. In the year 1903 the defendant, Whistler, purchased of plaintiff, Bayne, half of the latter’s…
1Opinion of the Court
MOORE, District Judge.
The following facts stand undisputed by the evidence:(1) Bayne’s ownership of undivided half interest in the Wonder creek claim.(2) Purchase by Whistler of undivided half of Bayne’s interest in Dahl creek fraction for $1,000, of which $260 was paid in cash, with full knowledge of existing mortgage on the whole of property and other property.(3) The close social intimacy and the deference of Bayne to Whistler’s judgment in business matters; the general management of Bayne’s interests by Whistler and his reliance upon Whistler’s experience.(4) Eeases by Whistler of Wonder…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Pence v. LangdonSupreme Court of the United States · 1879
- United States v. County of MacOnSupreme Court of the United States · 1879
- King v. RemingtonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1886
- Dennis v. McCaggIllinois Supreme Court · 1863
- Kyle v. PerdueSupreme Court of Alabama · 1891
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.