Pioche daily record. [volume] (Pioche, Nev.) 1872-1876, 1873-04-26

shall Immediately inure to the benefit Of
the employer. Did the Company place
confidence in their Superintendent? 1
They increased his salary and made him |
valuable presents. Did they have con-
fidence in Perley? They likewise in
creased his salary. The law, then, says, |
all their acts shall inure to the benefit of |
their employer. Reads again. Here
it is laid down that if an agent departs |
from the instructions of his principal he |
does SO at his peril BE the titles of the |
principal good or bad, they do so at their
peril. Lightner and Perley sold ont to
the Hermes while acting as our agents,
retaining for their own private benefit
substantial interests. [Agaia reads |
This authority is still more conclusive.
1t give it as an established principle of
law that one who acquires real estate in
his own name while acting as an agent
must hold it in trust for his principal.
Reads a number of authorities, showing
that all who are privy to bad faith in
agents are themselves equally disqual-
ihed.l Now, could Hearst have known
he was getting good title on October
II, 1871, when he knew that on the 25th
of the preceding month it became ours
by virtue of the Lightner location? Did
they not know they were purchasing our
ground? The authorities of law all de-
mand that there should have been at
least the appearance of legal title. At
that very time we were extracting ores
| from the ground-were in undisputel
| possession; Lightner, our agent,
was at work on the very ground that
Hearst sold to the Hermes corporation.
And purchaser, to be protected, must
be purchaser for valuable consideration.
II the purchaser, at the time of purchase,
knows that the property is held in trust,
he himself becomes trustee. And what
were the payments made by these par
ties? McCannon knew, when he bought
Phoebe No. 4, that Perley had bought it
for the Raymond a. Ely Company, as
their attorney; and all he paid for it was
$3.50, and that was probably refunded to
him. The plain truth is, none of these
Hermes men intended from from the
beginning to use, and they never did use,
dollar of their own money; all they
invested was what they got out of
the Raymond e. Ely treasury.
And all the payments made, or
agreed to be made, outside of the money
thus got hold of, were to be made in Her.
mes stock-that was to be the legal ten.
der for everything with these operators
when the Raymond az Ely treasury was
closed on them. Now, stock is not a val.
liable consideration-especially stock is.
sued on other folks property. 1t might
be worth something, and it might be
worth less than nothing. And in thi:
case the cooperation is itself tainted with
fraud, because the men who conceived il:
existence did so in fraud and violation Of
others rights, every minute of its exist
ence has been fraudulent. Thisis wis,
provision of law. If it were otherwise
unworthy agents could escape all penal
ties of their wrong doing by forming cor
neutrality-suspicious. would become
fences" for their stolen property. AND
, have they got the unblushing etfronter,
: to say they were not notified that w
, claimed the ground? Lightnsr, tn
Superintendent, refused TO motif,
, Lightner, the stakeholder; Hearst
the stakeholder, refused to nc
e tity Hearst, the corporation. AM
{ Judge Mesick and Mr.. Perley claim tina
: plaintiffs failed to notify the defendant
d that they were on their ground, and are
e therefore estopped from setting up title
: against them! Now, if wrong has beel
: done here, who has done it? The Ray
a mond & Ely Company? Why, the de
4 PENDANTS were themselves in charge @
t the property. The true owners RENAME
r silent because our agents failed to motif
# themselves that they were taking GU
e property.
Tn conclusion oaptlamop ~ tha iurx