Pioche daily record. [volume] (Pioche, Nev.) 1872-1876, 1873-04-29

having bought without no. I
ice, and they must be involved in ruin
By the termination of this case against ,
ls. When the incorporators of the COM
pany parted with their interests they re-
,eived therefor 800, 900 shares Of stock,
valued at 800 each, and the effect is the
same as il Hearst had paid in, for this
stock, three millions Of dollars in money,
instead of transferring the property.
But l claim there could have been no
trust on the part of Perley and Lightner
in regard to this estate. The Panaca
title is based on location made in 1864:
the Hermes on location made in 1871;
and they are entirely distinot and indie
pendent claims. II we had bought under
the. Panaca location. then the question
might have arisen. But We claim under
another and an entirely distinct location,
and PsrIey and Lightner were no more
under obligations to the Raymond Il Ely
Company to let it alone than they were
to let this Court house alone. The only
question before you is whether the Ray I
mond Il Ely Company had an unqunli-
fiedly good title Ut the time the Hermes
location WAS made. II they had not, then
it would be INDUSTRIOUS to claim that
Lightner and Perley had not as good
right as any one on earth to make that
location. II the Panaca location was
uood, then the Hermes is bad; if the
Hermes is good, then the Panaca is
worthless. II the Hermes is good and
the Panaca bad, then the plaintiffs have
not been harmed by the Hermes location,
and Perley and Lightner violated no
duty as confidential agents. They
seemed to think their own title was
worthless, and by piece OF strategy
they would come into Court and get our
title away from us. Why could not
Perley and Lightner have bought in their
own right an estate lying contiguous to
that OF their employers? Certainly they
could, because they would not be tres
passing on the rights of their employers.
Now, If the Raymond x Ely Company
had no absolute right to the ground in
dispute at the time the Hermes location
was made, then there has been no violation
OF duty on their part, for there was no
trust on their part in favor OF the plain
tiffs. But even if there were trust,
the defendants have bought under such
circumstances that they cannot be dis
turbed in their fights.
Recess.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
Judge Mesick, resuming, said that he
had undertaken to show the position OF
| the defendants as bona fide, innocent
purchasers. though Perley and Light
ner might have been charged with trust
in regard to the property. But have
shown that they could not have been
agents in respect to the Hermes location,
il that property was not absolutely owned
by the Raymond i Ely Company. Judge
| Hardy says that deed will be set aside
which conveys to an agent property bid
| in by him ut O tax sale. Certainly,
because the agent is the agent for that
very property. 1t is not parallel case.
Perley and Lightner were not the agents
of the Raymond Il Ely Company IN re-
spect to the property in dispute, for the
Raymond h Ely Company had no title
! to the ground. Their employers had set
up no claim to the ground, and, there
fore, no trust could have been violated.
And an agent cannot do what the princi-
pal himself cannot do. The Raymond 4
Ely Company could not itself have 10.
Gated the Hermes ground, because under
the Congressional law Of 1866 no person
can locate over 200 feet on the same ledge
Now, in law q corporation is nm individ.
ual. They could not have taken more
Reads the law. Here it is emphatically
said that no person, not discoverer. can
locate over 200 feet on the same lode
and if they had located 1000
feet, instead Of 200, you could not sep
arate the good from the bad and the loca
ton in its entirety would fail; because
the right and the wrong would be insep
arably intermiugled. But il may gravely
be doubted whether corporation, undel
the Congressional Act, can make a min
ing location at ALL The law comedies
the right only to 'citizens of the United
States" and the Supreme Court of the
United States has decided that corpora
ton cannot, in any sense, be considered q
citizen OF the United States. Therefore
the location in September for Bell
Moulder and others, is absolutely void
And again, the Commissioners of the Lame
Office rules that corporation canno
apply for and receive a patent unless
every one OF its stockholders is a citizel
Of the United States, for the corporation
itself could not be considered citizen
This was the law and the ruling whei
the Hermes location was made. 1t is tn
policy of nearly every government Of
earth. az well as Of the United States
to restrict the rights and privileges o
foreigners in regard to real estate. 1t
the settled policy OF the Government
tho United States to do so. Read
/ from Nevada reports, showing that it !
not sufficient to show that land is sui
J iect to pre-emption, but the right of tn
} claimant to pre-empt must be el
pressly and specifically shown Nov
/ II the Raymond l. Ely Company had no
established o right to locate mimi
. ground, their agents could hot have lC
Gated for them, and no trust has bee
violated. [Reads. And how can the
] come into court and set up right to tn
. property on our alleged misdeeds, or th
! violation Of trust by their agents, instea
OF showing the sufiiciency Of their owl
! titles? Shall they not establish thei
own title, before they can attack ours
, II the Raymond 4 Ely Company coul
> not have been located. through thei
, agents, then their agents did them n
. wrong in locating for themselves, bu
{ simply exercised their indisputable right
I as citizens OF the United States.
: As to the charges Of fraud and cor
8 spiracy, Of which We have heard so much
0 Ihave failed to see any kind OF proof !
: support Of them. More recent, MOI
. effectual, and moro honest enterprise
: should not be crippled and embarrasse
by illegal and abandoned first location!
0 The Panaca was not valid location, b
! cause it did not mark out the boundaries
/ When vandemark, Box and Sherwoo
r went on the ground, Hamlin and 81
, had already located. Then Vandemarl
:. Box and Sherwood must have taken u
! extensions; and the only way, under th
! laws Of Utah. they could have taken u
. locations, WAS to have the ground sui
: veyed, plated and recorded. Hamli
!. said it had been surveyed. Vandemar
: said he thought there. were som
. old stakes. But can You, from tn