Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1904-12-29
SUPREME COURT DECISION.
Continued from Page g.

SUPREME COURT DECISION.
Continued from Page g.
beyond any doubt. to be a pl ofitablc
one.
That the taking out of ore from the
said ground began about June 1. 1901,
That the first assertion Ct his
alleged claim or interest was not made
by plaintiff until Nov I, 1901, or there
abouts and that nothing was done by
plaintiff to enforce his alleged claim
or interest until the 10th of January
1902, when above entitled action was
commenced"
Plaintiff testified in part as follows:
"In the latter part of the converse
ton told Mr.. Coslett that if he came
across some good property that he
could get a lease or bond on to let me
know and after my personal examina-
ton of it-that would go down there
and examine the property, and after
taking my own personal expense and
the money-whatever it was, that / in
vested that we needed. divide the rest
there and share alike, that we would
divide the profits that way, but said
l would not entertain proposition un-
til l made a personal examination my
self (Tr P. g.
Upon the cross examination the fol-
lowing occurred:
60 You would not have taken hold
of any property until you made a
personal examination?
sonal examination.
Q. You was to manage the deal
and buy the property, Coslett was to
do whatever you said?
a. There was nothing said exactly
about that; l was to use my own
judgment about that
@. Who was to put up tha money
for the bondn
A. was
Q. You were to put up the money
and take the bond on it if you consid-
cred it a good proposition and if you
considered it was not you would drop
it, using your own judgment about it?
A. Yes sir, | would take bond if (
thought it was all right and if l didn't
] would drop it. l was to use my
Judgment.
Q. Then no matter what Coslett did
you were to approve of it first, and if it
was not good proposition according
to your Judgment you would abandon
it?
A. Well
@. You had the exclusive right to
say as to whether the property was
to be taken Or not?
A. Yes sir, that was strictly under
stood"
In defendants narration of the agree
ment he said:
Well he, plaintiff, said he didn't
want to bother with any leases any
way, and that he was too far away to
tend to leases, and that he didn't want
to have anything to do with them; that
all he wanted to be interested in was
mining locations or claims or Jointly
in bonds that l might see fit to take"
The words in the above quoted find
ing THAT each should be equally in
terested in any lease taken by
defendant and plaintiff =" must be
taken in their literal sense, that is
to say; plaintiff and defendant were
not in fact interested in the lease.
Defendant was. The above excerpts
of the testimony of the plaintiff him.
self shows that he was not to be inter
ested in any lease until after examina-
ton and approved by himself. He was
not informed by defendant concerning
the mine or lease Under plaintiffs YER
sion it was defendants duty to have
informed him But notice of the facts
sufficient to put prudent man upon
enquiry could have come from any
other source. The district court found
as fact that plaintiff was fully and
fairly informed by others. Under
these circumstances considering the
uncertain value of the property plain
tiff should have promptly asserted his
rights and not have waited until de-
PENDANT had developed the property
and demonstrated its value
1t is unnecessary to consider other
questions. The plaintiffs testimony
and the findings upon the subject of
notice precludes recovery
The judgment and ordeer are affirm
ed.
Belknap, G. J.
We concur:'
Fitzgerald, j.