The record-union. [volume] (Sacramento, Calif.) 1891-1903, 1899-07-29
TRUMBO HELD RESPONSIBLE
GILBERT DoBBs OBTAINS 4
JUDGMENT.
Judge johnson Decides a Case In
Which an Amador Mine
IL Involved.


by Judge Johnson in the case OF Gill
bert Doobs against Isaac Trumbo and
C. E. burlington, in which the pialntifI
was awarded Judgment against Trum.
DO, and defendant harrington gets
Judgment against the PLAINTIFF tthe
latter. for costs only. The decision
which will be of interest to mining
men, is as follows:
This is an action, said the court,
brought by plaintiff as assignee Oh
Knight & Co. for certain foundry work
furnished the defendants at the Cover
mine, in Amador County. The de-
PENDANTS appear by separate answers.
The assignor of plaintiff conducts
foundry at Suffer Creek, in Amador
County, distant about three miles from
the mine.
Prior to June II, 1895. the Cover
mine was owned and operated by
corporation. Defendant Trumbo was
mining man engaged in operating ana
buying and selling mines. and man
of means. The defendant burlington
was mining superintendent. About
the time stated the mine was full OF
water, and tied up by litigation
1t was represented to defendant
Trumbo by defendant burlington that
there was a speculation to be had by
getting an option on the mine, pump
ing out the water. and that q large
body of ore would be visible, and that
the mine could be sold: he represented
that the proposed work could be done
at an expense of 1000. ~
An option was obtained; the mine
was bonded to Trumbo June II, 1880;
the work was commenced; Trumbo
furnished capital far in excess or the
original estimate; burlington superin-
tended the work up to about Septem-
Der 10, 1896. The items. the subject of
the suit were in the meantime fur
nished. The venture proved failure.
Thus far the two defendants agree.
but in all other matters their testi-
mony is fatty contradictory. each
charging that the other is liable for
the account of Knight & Co.
Trumbo contends that burlington
came to him and said he could clear
the mine of water. and show the body
of ore for the sum of $1,000, and that
he agreed to furnish that sum, for
which burlington undertook to do the
work, and Trumbo had nothing to do
with the details. That burlington was
to have 10 per cent. of whatever was
realized on the sale of the mine.
On the other hand. burlington says
that Trumbo was to furnish all the
capital necessary to clear the mine of
water; that he was to receive a sal
airy of $50 per month as superintend-
ent. and that for his share of the ven
ture, that is the payment of the OPP
ton, etc. he was to have 80 per cent.
of whatever sum should be realized
from the sale of the mine. burlington
went to Knight, the assignor, and
stated to him that he had money to
pay for articles which were wanted at
the Cover mine. and that he would
get cash payments.
With that understanding the articles
We're furnished. He paid weekly for a
while, then he got behind to quite an
amount, until about April %, 1896
they had reached the sum of SS75.1o
Becoming dissatisfied he wrote to Pur-
rington urging payment; in answer he
received letter dated April 81, 1896
from Trumbo in which he stated: GAS
far as anything for that property is
concerned charge the same to me per-
sonally." Trumbo's brother was en-
and assayer-sent by Trumbo.
Trumbo frequently visited the mine
and remained there several days at a
time. Knight met Trumbo at the mine
early in 1896, when he told him that
he was going to put up an additional
mill at the mine, and in the letter OF
the 9th to Knight he asks him the
cost of a mill. The bond was taken in
the name of Trumbo. was duly record
ed in July, 1896, shortly after its exc
cution. These are matters which OF
themselves would not be sufficient tc
create a liability on the part of de-
PENDANT Trumbo. but they are corrob-
orative of Purrington's testimony, and
If Purrington's statement is true, ther
Trumbo is the party who should have
paid the items incurred of Knight &
Co. ! feel that I am compelled to sc
find: under the testimony.
If Trumbo is liable then burlington
is not. The testimony shows that either
one or the other is liable. but that both
cannot be, because Trumbo says thai
burlington undertook the work on hi:
own responsibility, while he only fur.
nished such money as he might neet
to carry on the work and that re
stricted to a certain figure. Purring
ton says he was only an employe o.
- -