Fergus County argus. [volume] (Lewistown, Mont.) 1886-1946, 1902-11-12
Some Mining Decisions.


C~o-tenants have each the benefit Of
work done on mining claims. Where
the question was whether 800 worth
of work had been done on a mining
claim in the year 1898, and the wit
nesses of complainant were that II
had been done, and a witness Of the
defendant stated that in 1897 the tun-
mel (the only work done) was in depth
IS or 40 feet, and another witness Of
the defendant testified that in the
fall of 1897 1t was As or 50 feet, say
ing that he had measured il the day
before and found it SO feet, and furth.
err stated that IL or Ii feet of work
was done after December 81, 1898, and
defendants witnesses testified that
they estimated the worn done on the
tunnel to cost 81 to SIS per foot, such
evidence was sufficient to show that
over 800 worth of work had been
done in the year 1898. If the required
amount of work is lone. ii is imma-
terial whether all OF the co-tenants
do their proportionate part of such
work, where it is shown that the re-
CURED amount of work mas been done.
it will be presumed, in the absence
of evidence to the contrary, that 1t
was done by the c~o-tenants OF some
of them. And where one ~co-tenant
attempts to relocate a mining claim
his act enures to the benefit Of all
the co-tenants. The mere lapse of
time does not dissolve the relationship
of co-tenancy.-Yarwood VS.. Johnson
GO Pacific Reporter, 124); Supreme
Court Of Washington.
Sufficient Statement of Fraudulent
Act in Relocating Mining Claim.-A
complaint alleges that one of the de-
PENDANTS, who was a c%o-tenant of the
complainant in a certain mining claim
had relocated the claim in behalf Of
another, and that 1t vas not open to
relocation, as all Inc required work
had been done on the claim; but that
IL 1t had not been done 1t was owing
to the fraud of the defendant, who
had for consideration contracted with
complainant to do the latter's requir-
ed work. The prayer was for an ac-
counting, injunctive relief, that CON-
plainant be decreed the owner of a
certain interest, and for general re-
lief. Defendant urged that the COM
plant was defective In that the spec
ifc cause of action was uncertain.
The court held that the contention
had no merit, the of action be-
ing the Withholding Of interest; and
II the required work had been done
the relocation was a cloud on COM
plainant's title, and IL not defendant
might be found to be a trustee. and
such relief al the ~pleadings and evil
dence warranted might be given IN
der the prayer for general relief. And
it was proper for the lower court not
to compel the plaintiff to elect wheth-
er he would stand on the allegation
that the required amount of work
was not done, or that If not it was
through the fraud, ETC., of the defend
ant; since more than one set of facts
might establish the wrong complain
ed of-Yarwood VS.. Johnson go Pa
cific Reporter, 1881; Supreme Court
of Washington.
When Act of Foreman is That OF a
Fellow Servant and Company Not Liza
ble.-A coal yard was provided with
steel cables. on which. in unloading q
vessel, buckets hoiuing ABOUT a ton
we're lifted and hauled to the point
where the coal was to be dumped,
where q devise called a tripper or
bumper, coming in contact with the
latch of the bucket, caused 1t to emp
ty. The trippers ran on trolley wheels
along the cables and were moved to
and held in proper places by ropes.
When the place of emptying the buck
cts was changed, one or two of the
workmen handled the rope and anoth-
er, standing by the tripper. told him
when 1t was at the proper place. The
foreman, wishing to empty coal into
a certain hopper, directed two men to
let the tripper down to such hopper,
and said he would tell them when 1t
was in the right place; this being
commonly done by members of the
force doing the general work. They
let 1t down ten or fifteen feet too far,
and before it was pulled back a buck
ct of coal was hauled up on the cable
and emptied at such point just as an
other employee, working in the yard
in the performance Of his duties, pass
ed under, and he was injured. There
was no defect in the apparatus. and no
negligence claimed, other than plac-
ing the tripper in the wrong place.
The court held that in assisting in the
change of the tripper the foreman