McCurdy v. Alpha G. & S. Mining Co.
Nevada Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court of the First Judicial District, Hon. C. Burbank, presiding. The facts are fully stated in the opinion. The Court erred in refusing to give the third, fourth and tenth instructions asked by defendants. These instructions were for the purpose of giving to the jury a proper construction of the deeds under which the plaintiff claimed; that construction was for the Court, and not the jury.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court of the First Judicial District, Hon. C. Burbank, presiding. The facts are fully stated in the opinion. The Court erred in refusing to give the third, fourth and tenth instructions asked by defendants. These instructions were for the purpose of giving to the jury a proper construction of the deeds under which the plaintiff claimed; that construction was for the Court, and not the jury. The Court erred in instructing the jury that they were to construe the deed and ascertain the intent of the parties. The instructions as given were inconsistent with themselves and…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Beatty, J., Lewis, C. J.,
concurring.
This Avas an action brought to recover 127 feet undivided interest in certain mining ground in Gold Hill. The circumstances on which the claim is founded, and which are necessary to be knoAvn to determine the rights of the parties, are as follows:
*30On the ninth day of July, 1859, certain parties made the following location of a mining claim at Gold Hill:
That we, the undersigned, claim four claims of 1,200 feet, including quartz and surface, commencing at the Reverend Bennett claim and running north. This claim lies to the right of Gold Hill, TJ. T.…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Krutzfeld v. StevensonMontana Supreme Court · 1930
- Dalton v. BowkerNevada Supreme Court · 1873
- Powers v. HibbardMichigan Supreme Court · 1897
- Coppermines Co. v. CominsNevada Supreme Court · 1915
- Wilson v. TerryMichigan Supreme Court · 1902