Walker Lake bulletin. (Hawthorne, Nev.) 1883-1926, 1883-12-05
THE INJUNCTION DISSOLVED.
Opinion Of Judge Edmonds In the
Suit for ene-eishth of the Mount
Cory Nine.

Cory Nine.
The following opinion of Judge
Edmonds can be found in Volume MI,
No. 12, Pacific Coast Lar Joa4ai.
The case IS an important one and
arises out of an alleged contract of
partnership between the plaintiff, Bra
eel, and George L. Wells. Suit was
commenced to dissolve this partner.
ship, 10 reach property in The hands of
third persons and establish a trust in
favor of the partnership arising out of
the transactions set forth in the com.
plant An injunction was granted ON
the complaints; afterwards the COM
plant was amended SO as to include
corporation to which tins property
had been conveyed, and the injunction
was made to include the corporation
and restrain sale of the property.
On the coming in of the answers of
the defendants, they moved 10 dissolve
this injunction upon the pleadings
and upon the deposition of the plaintiff,
Bra2ell, taken ON behalf of the defend
ants. The plaintiff seeks TO sustain
his bill by additional ailidayits, of
which a large number were read ON
the hearing, bit plaintiffs case should
stand or taH upon his oteR feStfmoR8,
1odich, far the purpose Of tbs motion, I
tase 10 ha0s stated the faets Substantially
rs they took place.
The property consists of a mine
the Mount Cory Mine, in the State of
Nevada, said to be very valuable, and
alleged to be worth $10,000000 aud
upwards which mine was purchased
by James c. Flood, in the name OF
George Il. Wells, IA conveyance then
taken by Flood, and by Flood con
veyed to the Noun Cory Mining Com
pany.
Let us see if in this case there was
any contract of partnership between
these parties-Bra2ell aud Webster
tiB'S ease must fail, and THIS suit nil
hare TO be dismissed, as it as q suit
brought 10 diSsotee q partnership. is /
said, the plaintiffs deposition has been
taleh, and therefore on the decision Of
tbs motion tie Court lnW treat tic case
precisely as though IL had been tried and
a motion for q n0R,Sait icere made upon
the plajntif's oton testimony.
The agreement between the parties,
as alleged in the complaint and de.
tailed by Mr.. Brazell, did not look to
working, or spending money ON the
mine in working or developing it, but
simply to its acquisition. And if Bra
zell and Wells had actually acquired
this Mount Cory mine, with their otca
funds and in their joint names, they
would not under this agreement have
been partners IN the mine, but simply
tenants IN common. Again. they did
not pay for the mine, either with their
individual money, or with any partner
ship funds There teefe no paftRer8A5p
finds. 1t was eontended ON the argn-
ment that this verbal option To pur-
chase was 10 be treated rs partnership
funds-as Il bond we will call it, void
able because not in writing, but with,
inaamuch as the mine owners did not
repudiata il, but consented to convey,
or complete the contract, might be
treated the same rs though it were in
writing; and the argument is, il this
had been in writing and sold and dis
posed OF by the partnership 10
Flood, II might by a stretch of reason
ing be treated as partnership funds,
which paid Tor tie nine.
II the offer had beea accepted there
might have been more force in the
argument, but there was no acceptance
OF the offer and consequently no con
tract, not even verbal one, between
this firm, so called, and the owners OF
the mine. Tic lifm, therefore, had
nothing of value that could in any
sense be called partnership funds or
property The case which is decisive
GA this point is Ellie as. Jads0u, (24
Wend. so, precisely similar case in
this respect.
So, leaving out all the other parts of
the narrative, the sole transaction
from which this trust could be said to
arise is the conversation which took
place between Wells and Drazall on
the cars coming home, when Wells
suggested to Brazel that he thought
he conld get Flood to purchase this
mine and carry them an interest.
16ere is NJ Contract o. partnership dfts
ing ol6 Of that tf6asactfoa, and see no
possible WAY in which Court of
equity can impress trust on this
propert5 held in the name of Flood or
in the name of this corporation, or in
which it could have impressed u trust
in favor Of Brazell, If Wells himself
had purchased, and obtained the title
in lis own name aud with lis own
funds.
shall therefore lave to Grant this
motion to dissolve the Injunction, and
/ gftat 4 Upo8 tie ground TIM d
appears from The plai33bS o'o8 deposition
dtR there ras no c9R5fae5 IF partnership
between him aud Wells