National Republican., 1874-06-03
SUITS AGAINST THE sUTRo TUN1
MEL C0NPANY. y \. ,,stI


MEL COMPANY Y \. Il
EIGHT COMPLAINTS M.ED ALREADY
NINE MORE To- RolLow-AcTIous
BASED ON sgTRoS FAILURE 10
CoMPLY-wfTH HIS coNTRACr-rHH
AGREERNT 10 Bx RHseNDRD.
Especial oorrsspoids4es o. tie national Rspub-
siE FRAnc1sco, Nay 2s.--suits have been
begun against the sutro Tunnel Company by
the Comstock Mining Companies.
EroHr COMPLAINTS --s.zs
were filed to-day in the Fifteenth District
Court By the following mining companies on
the Copstock. lode; Crown Point, Chollar
Potosi, Gould & Curry, Imperial, Oyerman,
ophir, Savage & Hale, and Norcross, against
the sutro Tunnel Company-Adolph sutro
ct al, to rescind the agreement between the
tunnel company and the miners; to release the
mines from all lien by the defendants, and 70
enjoin them from setting up any claim or title
upon said mines.
.--,-. SIMILAR COMPLAINTS
viii be filed BY the following companies: Cali
fornia Silver Mining Company, White & Muir
ply, Best g. Belcher, Alpha, Bacon, Gold Hill
Quartz Mill and Mining Company, Confidence,
Empire, Yellow Jacket, and Belcher.
EACH ooMPLAINANT REcITEs
that, prior to the 4th day of July, 1855, said
Sutro conceived the project Of running from
the Foot hills Of the Carson river valley into
the Comstock lode, for the purpose of dis
covery and development Of the bodies of pre-
ofo, bv kho
and usages then, and ever since, prevailing in
the State of Nevada, would, IN such discovery,
become the property Of said Sutro and his
associates, and for the purpose Of inducing
the aforesaid owners on the Comstock lode
and other lodes to avail themselves of the ad-
vantages Of said tunnel, at prices to be agreed
upon, and for other purposes.
That pursuant to said object Sutro procured
the passage by the Nevada Legislature Of an
"act granting the right of way and authorizing
A. Sutro and his associates to construct a
mining and draining tunnel" approved Febru-
ary 4, 1865; that after the passage Of the act,
and before -d day in 1866, Sutro and
other individuals, defendants herein named,
and D. E. Avery, deceased, associated them
selves together, and in accordance with the
terms of the aforesaid law; that on and before
the last~named date the mine of plaintiff was
affected by how of water therein, and was in
need Of better ventilation, and was supplied with
hoisting machinery of simple character and
quite limited power, and
S1I <-rS--SR, ~ -. y,
SAID sUTRo AND MS ASSOCIATES REPRE-
sENTED TO PLAINTIFF
that they could complete said tunnel within
the time named in the said act, to wit: Eight
years from the fourth OF February, 1885, and
in accordance with the other terms and con-
dltions thereof, and that the mine of plaintiff
would be drained and ventilated, and access to
and from said mine be greatly facilitated, and
the labor and expense Of plaintiffs business be
greatly reduced, and the plaintiff and the said
Individual defendants and the said deceased
Avery made a written agreement in relation
to the premises, copy Of which is annexed to
the complaint, and the plaintiff further AYERS
that on - day Of 1867, at the request Of in
diyiduais, defendants, the plaintiff further ex-
tended the time In articles first, third, fourth,
and fifth, 80 that It should read August, 1858,
instead of August, 1857, and plaintiff AYERS
that # hath In all promises on its part kept
them, but that
SAID DEFENDANTS DID NOT KEEP THE COVE
NANTs OR PROMISES
made in said agreement on their part; that the
did not commence the work on or
before August, 1855, nor did they prosecute the
work with reasonable energy or vigor, nor were
the tunnels and drifts mentioned now excavated
or completed or put condition for use In accord
ance with the agreement by which they agreed
to simultaneously sink three shafts on the line
of the tunnel; nor has the said work been per-
formed continuously or without interruption,
although no unavoidable accident has hap
pened in relation thereto; that, on the contrary,
the little work that has been Sone has bssn
done freely, without energy and at great in
tervals and delay, and plaintiff further AYERS
that
THERE HAS NOT BEEN SUBSCRIBED IN GOOD
FAITH,
or at ALL by responsible, or apparently responsi-
BILE persons, as large a sum, or any sum nearly
so large, as 81, ,0OO, 900 for the said work, nor
any sum sufficient to complete said work; and
that on the 1st Of August, 1858, there was not
expended S400, 600, or any other considerable
sum; nor has there been expended after said
fiscal year s2oO, 200, or any sum approximating
to that amount, and said
HAVE NOT FURNISHED 4 FULL
AND TRUE STATEMENT,
or given other statement whatever Of the ex-
peuditures on the work during all or any of
said years, but have wholly neglected to do SO.
And plaintiff further AYERS that the completion
Of the work has been immensely delayed, and
without Just cause; and plaintiff further AYERS
that the agreement declared that If work was
not commenced before August 1, 1867, (ex-
tended to 1868, and the sum of s., 900 900
and II, after commencing, they
should fail to sxpend the first year, or any
rear, the sums agreed, the said agreement
should, at option of the plaintiff, cease and
and thereafter be of no effect. And
plaintiff AYERS that before November %, 1869,
PLAINTIFF EXERCISED ITS OPTION THAT THE
AGREEMENT SHOULD BE OF NO EEPEcT,
and that defendants had notice thereof, and
the plaintiff, to the knowledge of individual
declared and treated said agree
ment as rescinded, and plaintiff does now again
exercise its option, and forbids the prosecution
Of work under said agreement.
Plaintiff AYERS that on November 90, 1859,
the defendants became q body polite, and Or
ganized as such, under laws of California, and
acquired all the rights and franchises of the
now individual defendants, who made legal
transfer of all their rights, franchises, and
pro perty owned under the act of the Nevada
Legislature. That
THE DEFENDANT HAS FAILED TO PERFORM
ITS AGREEMENT,
and that all the breaches Of the agreement set
forth have been made. By act of Legislature,
eight years were Gven for the completion of
the work, Which has not been done, nor will
the work be completed In eight years more.
Plaintiff aSsrs that IN ssid agreement time
was made the essence OF the contract, and that
after the expiration Of said eight years plaintiff
did declare and announce that said agreement
had ceased and become of no effect, and
plaintiff again exercises It's option that agree
ment shall cease, and forbids any more work to
be done under said agreement.
Plaintiff further AYERS that failure of defend
ants and Of said Avery to perform their
agreement, and on being satisfied of their
inability to perform the remaining portions