Legal Opinion

Waskey v. Hammer

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided May 3, 1909No. 1,609PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ROSS, Circuit Judge.

The subject-matter of this action is a piece of mining ground in Alaska, covered by two overlapping mining locations; that under which the defendants in error (who were plaintiffs in the court below) claim having been made in January, 1904, under the name of “Golden Bull” claim, and that under which the plaintiffs in error (who were the defendants below) assert their rights having been made in January, 1902, under the name of “Bon Voyage” mining claim. The latter was made by the plaintiff in error Whittren, who afterwards executed a deed to Eadie of an undivided interest…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Gwillim v. DonnellanSupreme Court of the United States · 1885
  2. Lavagnino v. UhligUtah Supreme Court · 1903
  3. Wells v. NicklesSupreme Court of the United States · 1882
  4. Prosser v. FinnSupreme Court of the United States · 1908
  5. Hand v. CookNevada Supreme Court · 1907

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Jones v. Wild Goose Mining & Trading Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1910
  2. Cardoner v. Stanley Consol. Min. & Mill. Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Idaho · 1911
  3. Adams v. Yukon Gold Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1918
  4. Platt v. BaggArizona Supreme Court · 1954
  5. Adams v. Yukon Gold Co.District Court, D. Alaska · 1915

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API