The Pioche weekly record. [volume] (Pioche, Nev.) 1877-1900, 1895-08-08
SUPREME COURT DECISION.
In the Supreme Court of The State of
Nevada.

Charles Craw, appellant, VS.. Frank
Wilson, respondent.
OPINION BY BELKNAP.
This is suit in equity for the purpose
among other things of obtaining decree
determining that plaintiff is a half owner
with defendant in certain mining property
standing in the name of defendant.
The case was tried by the court without
Jury. The decision was in favor of defen.
dant
The complaint alleges that in considera.
ton of the mutual advantages to be derived
therefrom the parties promised and agreed
to and with each other to combine their
efforts and means in prospecting for and To-
eating water rights, timber claims and
mines and mining claims and that they
should be equal partners in all such loca-
tions. That said agreement has never been
annulled in any way but still remains in full
force and effect
The answer denies the partnership.
Admits defendants ownership in the mines,
but denies that such ownership was acquir-
ed by virtue of any agreement Of partner.
ship, or by the aid of any means, tools or
equipments furnished by the partnership,
and alleges that the defendants interest was
acquired entirely independent of it,
The facts, so far as material to the con.
tention, are that the parties formed a min
ing partnership by oral agreement and
under it some mining locations were made
and other property acquired. These
matters were of small value and all of them
had been settled long prior to the com.
mencement of this suit. If there was any.
thing left out it was, according to appel.
ants testimony, the Hidden Treasure claim,
called in the complaint by mistake the Key
stone claim. No effort was made to amend
the complaint so as to embrace the Hidden
Treasure claim, probably because no value
was attached to it, and it was afterwards re-
located by a stranger.
In the spring of 1892 the defendant went
to the Ferguson Mining District and il
connection with others, located the property
in dispute. The important question il
| whether the Ferguson District mines were
located under the partnership Unles
partnership capital was employed in thei
acquisition the partnership agreement is with
: in the Statute of Frauds, and void. TIL,
Statute declares: 'Sec. So. No estate OIL
A interest in lands other than leases for tern
not exceeding one year, nor any trust o
power over or concerning lands, or in an!
E manner relating thereto, shall hereafter b
. created, granted, assigned, surrendered o
declared unless by act or operation of Law
0 or by deed or conveyance in writing sub
n scribed by party creating, granting, assign
ing or declaring the same, or by his Lawful
e agent, thereto authorized in writing" (Stat
a 1861, p. H. Equitable relief may be give
4 against the partner holding the legal It'll
9 when the property has been acquired b
partnership capital, upon the theory that
e resulting trust exists-a trust arising b
operation OF law and within the exceptio
$ of the Statute. Collyer on part 5 1876 an
note; Edgar VS.. Donnelly, . NUM-. $751;
Sigourney vs.. Hum. Conn. IL. The Dis
II trict Court however, in its decision undo
l. conflicting testimony, held that the mine
o were not located with partnership capiti
o and enforced its conclusion by many CT
J. cumstances in its support. Under we
IS settled rules we cannot disturb the finding
9 but take this occasion to approve of it I
e being fully supported by the evidence.
d A number of exceptions were taken
le the admission of evidence touching the di
!. solution Of the partnership. The admissio
y of this evidence could not have prejudice
;. the appellant, as the decision against hin
., as we have seen, was placed upon 9th,
to grounds.
D. The judgment and order of the Distri
lie Court are affirmed.
s. We concur Bigelow J. c.
" Bonni6eld J.
ID Filed July 26, 1895.
IN Eugene Howell,
Dc Secretary Of State and sx -oficio Clerk
I'd the Supreme Court.