The Grangeville globe. [volume] (Grangeville, Idaho) 1907-1922, 1910-12-15
AN IMPORTANT
MINING CASE
Supreme Court Remands Nc
Daniels-Moore Case For
a New Trial.

An important opinion dealing with
assessment work by co-owners of a
mining claim is that rendered by the
supreme court Saturday in the case
of S. C. Mcdaniel and others, of
Grangeville, appellants, against A. w.
Moore, respondent. The case was
taken from the second judicial dis
trict for Idaho county. 1t was an ac-
tion to recover for assessment work
done on a mining claim and for ex-
penses in procuring a patent there
for. Judge Edgar C. Steele entered
an order of non-suit and judgment OF
dismissal. He is reversed by the su-
preme court. Attorney L. Vineyard
of Grangeville, appeared for the ap-
oellants, while w. H. Casady, also of
G:angevile, was counsel for the re-
el1c-l,nt.
Tho tcticn was brought to recover
S215.G5 with interest thereon at Z per
cert, CT one-third of the total cost
and expenses of doin assessment
v'-.k t1oI the Tennessee lode mining
claim, ,-i,Gated i'm the Robbins min
ing t,Lrtitct in Idaho county, and of
rro<ul.cg patent from the United
'Statos for that mining claim.
I.he supreme court after reviewing
the evidence in the record, concludes
that the showing made by the plain
tiffs was sufficient to prove an Inn
piled promise On the part of the de-
fendant to pay his proportional part
of the the expenses.
Chief Justice Sullivan, who speaks
for the court, says: This court has
held in a number of cases that a
cause should not be taken from the
jury on motion for a non-suit when
there Is any evidence whatever tend
dng to establish the material allega-
tions Of the complaint, and that after
the plaintiff has introduced his evil
dence and rested his case, on appli-
cation for a non-suit the defendant
admits all of the acts which the evil
dence tends to prove. The evidence
on the part of this PLAINTIFF at least
made prima facie case.
THAT being true, the court erred
in taking the case from the jury. The
judgment must therefore be revers-
ed and the case remanded for a new
trial. Costs are awarded to the ap-
pellants."
Mining Technicalities.
The technical mining law points
are covered in the syllabus by the
court in part as follows:
Under the provisions of section
1924, Revised Statutes of the United
States, where co-owner of mining
claim fails to do his assessment work
or fails to contribute his proportion
OF the expenditures required in doing
performed the labor may give such
delinquent personal notice In writing
or by publication, as provided in said
statute, and II at the expiration of 80
days such delinquent should fail or
refuse to contribute his proportion of
such expenditure, his interest in the
claim shah become the property of
his co-owners who made such ex-
penditures. and the defaulting co-own
er is not personally responsible for
,any part OF the assessment work, un-
der the provisions of said section.
There is no implied contractural
relation between co-tenants and ten
ents In common, and one co-tenant
cannot bind the other without his
consent for the expenses incurred
in developing or improving their com
mon mining property; but the dehn.
quent cotenant may ratify such ex.
penditure and thereby become liable
for his proportional part thereof.
"The issues made by the pleadings
were whether the defendant had per.
formed or paid his part of the assess
ment work on said mining claim, and
whether a patent was issued to all OF
Tue pdrtleS 10 LLlS Suat IOr StiAu Hill
ing claim by the government and this
appeal must be decided upon the the
ory of the case made by the pleading
and proof
Held. that the evidence shows on
tends to show that the defendant
failed to pay for his proportional
part of the assessment work, at least
for the years 1904 and 1905, and fol
his proportional part of the expense
of procuring a patent, and the pre-
sumption arising from the issuance
of patent is that all of the require
ments OF the law In regard to its Is
suance have been complied with.