Amador ledger., 1908-02-21
Liens WILDE ForeCIOsed.

h lHes' GU al, and John higgins VS..
John II. Spring, Lincoln Gold Min
ing Co., Wlldman Cons. Mines ct al,
are for the foreclosure of liens on the
properties of the mines named, being
for services rendered The first
action prays for Judgment in the sum
OF S0ol144, besides the costs and
counsel fees, while the second prays
for @l4, $50. 81, costs and counsel fees.
John Hall, David Finn, T. l.. Can
win, and Domenico Sargentini turned
over their claims to Kerfoot, while
Thomas Simmons, A. Litson, Thomas
Irudgeon, A. N. Peterson, Henry
Parrow, Maurice Finn, ID. Coppi,
Charles kempthorn, Major Lathlean,
Daniel Odgers, Jacob ludlekofer, WIN.
Mugford, John l.. Redpath, A.
MenchinI and Elias James turned
over their claims to John Higgins,
all of them having worked at the
Lincoln at different times between
June 1903 and May 1906. VIM. j. Nc
Gee was attorney for the plaintiffs in
the first named actiun while g. +.
Viclni was attorney for plaintiff in
the second.
The decision of the court says:
The case of Kerfoot ct al is for the
foreclosure of liens on the Lincoln
Mining Co., while that of Higgins ct
al is for the foreclosure of liens on
the Wildman Cons. Mines, and claim
Ing liens on the Lincoln, claiming
that they were consolidated and
worked under one management. The
evidence does not show consolida-
tion. The Wildman Cons. Mines
have been operated for number of
years by the Wildman Gold Mining
Co. and consist of several claims ad-
joining each other. The Lincoln,
which adjoins these was leased by the
Wildman Cons. Mines and John Ross,
who was superintendent of the latter,
and was never intended to be oper-
ated as a part of that system and for
that reason the liens in Higgin IS
action cannot be foreclosed in any
event against that property.
The liens of kerfoot ct al are for
work done entirely upon the pro-
perty of the Lincoln mine and for
that reason the liens are entitled to
be toreclosed against the property
excepting the Lincoln Mill site,
which has never been take possession
of by either VOORHEES, or under his
bond, or by Ross for the WiIdman.
Besides which X. g. VOORHEES, has
lot of chlorination tailings and some
tanks on the property of the Lincoln,
which are exempt from sale. The de-
cree in this case is for judgment in
favor of the plaintiffs as prayed for,
and for sale of the property describ-
ed in the complaint, excepting
counsel fees, and also excepting the
mill site, and for deficiency judg-
ment against the Wildman.
In the case Of Higgins, the evidence
shows that IN Sept. 1900, the Wildman
Gold Mining Company, which operat-
ed the property up to Dec. 1905,
executed to Charles Il. Bishop its
pGomissory note for SS5, 900. secured
by deed of trust; that the property
which it covered had been sold in
Dec. 1905, to John ii. Spring. The
Lincoln company and John ii. Spring
commended that this deed of trust was
prior in time to the liens, hence, the
judgment in this case is that the
claimants have no liens against the
property prior to Dec. %, 1903, that
each has lien for the amounts given
below for services performed since
that time, and have nothing against
the Lincoln, and receive nothing for
counsel fees, but for costs of suit.
Also deficiency Judgment against
the Wildman should the proceeds of
the foreclosure be sufficient to satisfy
the claims.
The sheriff is directed to sell the
property of the Lincoln Gold Mining
Company, satisfy the liens, and pay
the balance to the Lincoln Co., and
have deficiency judgment against
the Wildman Cons. Mines, and to
sell the property known as the Wild
man and Mahoney mines and satisfy
the liens.
Tho amounts given in the judgment
are John Higgins Sl7i.l5, Thomas
Simmons 1888. 66, A. Litson $500. 80,
Thomas Trudgeon s23. SO, A. N. Peter
son $3.50, Henry rarrow S39l.50,
Maurice Finn sG05 so, d. Coppi s406.-
81, Charles Kempthorn s277.5 80, Major