The Eureka sentinel. [volume] (Eureka, Nev.) 1902-current, 1910-02-05
WINDFALL Co. GAINS DECISION
Judge Peter Breen Decides I'm
portant Local Mining Case in
District Court Saturday

~ - Wiclnnus w
Q. Rannels and the Eureka windfall
Mining Company. Judge Peter Breep
on Saturday, January 20. handed down
a ruling on the COLLECTION to the offer
OF proof by plaintiff on the default
entered against the Eureka windfall
Mining Company, one of the defendants
above named"
The opinion fills 10 typewriter pages
OF legal cap, and covers extensively
the points raised by counsel for the re-
spec,ive parties in their arguments
orally made. and by briefs.
IL will be remembered that when the
case was called for trial at the last ses.
sion OF court, and just al the jury was
about to be ~impaneled, much to the
surprise Of Court and counsel, the
plaintiff, Locke, dismissed his case
against the FIVE first named defendants,
and waived all claim for damages
against the defendant company.
The company, it seems, stood on its
demurrer, which was. with the demur.
rers of the other defendants, overruled.
The company declined to answer, and
upon counsel for plaintiff offering proof
on its default. counsel for defendant
company objected to proof being re-
ceived upon the ground that the dis.
missal against the other defendants was
practically a dismissal as to the COM
pany. The Court at the time expressed
serious doubt Of a cause of action ex-
listing against the company separate and
apart from the other defendants, and
called for further argument. oral and
written.
The Court reviews at length the
cause. as a whole, and shows by the
xverments of the complaint that if
any cause OF action existed it was
against the five defendants. Greenwood,
Geraty, Morrison. Wiedman and Ran.
uels, who prior to the organization Of
the Windfali Company, aud therefore
without it's concurrence or liability,
ousted plaintiff from the property in
which he aud Chord held a lease for
one year commencing in May. 1908.
Court recites at length the allegations
OF the complaint in which the FIRST five
defendants are set out as conspirators,
who combined to deprive plaintiff of his
rights-even TO using force and violence,
especially by Wiedman, to drive him
from the property. Tue Court then
cites verbatim from the complaint-the
single aud only allegation therein con
Meeting the company with the acts Of
the alleged five comprehension is
to the effect that the company was
merely organized TO assist the five-and
without a word 10 show it was other.
wise interested in the property. The
Court cites many authorities from the
Supreme Courts OF the States. as well
as from the United States Supreme
Court, to the effect that q defaultiDg
defendant can only be held for the ma
terial allegations in the complaint. and
that. when many defendants are jointly
sued, and are only jointly liable, a dis
missal. or Judgment in favor OF alex
cept a single defendant who failed TO
answer-will operate as a Judgment in
favor Of the dsfaulting defendant also.
The Court says: "That the COM
plant states a cause OF action against
the five defendants-the five conspira-
tors-who combined. IL is alleged. TO
deprive plaintiff of his rights. there is
not now, nor ever was, any doubt.
| There was some doubt, however. as to
| the existence of scause of action in the
complaint against the defendant com
pany, even jointly with the other de.
feudants. aud il was not without some
! misgiviug this Court overruled the de-
murrer of the corporation.
''Iu considering the course to be pur-
sued on the various demurrers, it was
not contemplated for a moment thai the
| cause would be dismissed against the
| arst five named defendants. as to whom
was set out so many overt acts and de-
| llnquencies in vigorous and potential
language rarely excelled. and to assist
whom, or as a mere auxiliary Of. as said
| by counsel for defendants. the company
was seemingly aud solely organized.
Full aud ample opportunity was given
for a trial on the merits.
Courts Of justice are created to as
certain and enforce the rights OF suitors.
aud it is the bounden duty OF litigants
to contribute their best efforts in the
establishment Of the truth. The dis
missal OF the cause against the five de
PENDANTS who, if the averments OF the
complaint be true, were the real cui-
prits in the action, just az the Court
was about to order the Clerk to fill the
Jury box. was an act not wholly with
out its mysterious aspect"
The Court shows at length that so
far as the complaint is concerned-and
in a cas- of defslt or judgment pro con-
fesso, the complaint is to be strictly
construed-there is not an iota to show
a tangible interest in the company con-
nected with the leasehold estate. nor to
show a single act OF aggression ON its
part against the plaintiff; that
4