Legal Opinion
Bicknell v. Austin Min. Co.
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Nevada
Decided July 2, 1894No. 570PublishedCited by 1 opinion
Action in trespass by John Bicknell and others against the Austin Mining Company. Judgment for plaintiffs.
1Opinion of the CourtHawley, District Judge
(orally). This is an action of trespass for forcibly depriving plaintiffs of tbe use and occupation of certain tailings and sluice boxes, and preventing them from working and enjoying tbe same, to tbeir damage in the alleged sum of 820,000. Tbe cause was tried before tbe court without a jury. Plaintiffs’ title to tbe bed of tailings, and right to use and work the same, is derived by virtue of a certain written lease, which is in the words and figures as follows:
“Austin, Nov., May 20, 1890. The Manhattan Mining & Red. Co. hereby leases to John Bicknell, Dan Bowen, and George Dale the tailings…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Walsh v. . Hartford Fire Insurance Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1878
- Gashwiler v. WillisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1867
- Bickford v. . MenierNew York Court of Appeals · 1887
- Salfield v. Sutter County Land Improvement & Reclamation Co.California Supreme Court · 1892
- Banks v. EverestSupreme Court of Kansas · 1886
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Bailey v. BondCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1896