Albuquerque morning journal. [volume] (Albuquerque, N.M.) 1903-1926, 1921-02-07
LIST OF S U p r E M E
COURT DECISIONS
Bernalillo County.

First National bank of Albuquer-
que. appellee. VS., William l.. Staley
and William L. Staley e. Co.. APP
pellants.
The above cases both will be dis
posed of in one opinion.
The first numbered cause appel
lice brought suit to recover on al
promissory note executed by appel
lent Staley. secured by $1,000
registered Liberty bond as coilat-
eral. The bond stood in the name
of the corporation and it was al
legged that the money was borrow
ed for the use and beneftt OF the
corporation. The complaint set up
that the collateral was ineffective
because the bond had not been
! transferred as required by the rules
and regulations of the treasury
department. The allegations of
) 1.-THE complaint were denied by an
: swer and findings of fact were
made by the court, upon which
Judgment was entered and this ap-
peal prosecuted.
The second cause of action was
t a. suit to foreclose a chattel mort
gage filed by the appellee against
/. appellant and on cross-complaint or
1.-The defendant Guy l., Rogers,
lagainst appellants for money had
and received. Upon issue joined
trial was had and judgment entered
against the appellants and in favor
of the First National bank ana also
in favor of Guy i. Rogers, from
the Judgment rendered the appear
is prosecuted.
judgements OF the court below
affairmed.
Syllabus.
In the absence of the evidence
the findings of the trial court VIII
be assumed to be correct.
Opinion by Roberts, G, J.
Parker, j., and Holloman, ID. j.
q concurring.
= Grant County.
Golden Giant Mining company
etc, appellant. vs.. c. w. Hill. ap
Epellee.
~ on motion for rehearing.
Heretofore an opinion was hand
g, ed down reversing the judgment Q
u, the court below, but upon NOR
mature consideration the couf
feels it fell into error in some paf
ne ticulars in the former oplnioi
The opinion will therefore be with
:" drawn.
I, This is an action brought by tn
ue Golden Giant Mining company
corporation. against G. w. hui
:, recover possession of two mimi
o. claims, resulting in a Judgmei
p against the plaintiff in the dlslrl
ii0 court from which it has prosecute
ha this appeal.
''e Motion for rehearing denied ca
remanded with instructions 10 emu
Judgment for appellant.
syllabus by the Court.
,,a 1. Expenditures made for Wo.
performed, labor done and repal
a made upon a stamp mill DO. n
tend to develop the mineral clai
or facilitate the extraction OF Q
III therefrom, and consequently DO y
SOC constituts any part of the sum l
CURED to be expended for amt
M. assessnnent or improvement woi
under Section 1924. U. S. r. 5.
Where one enters into pr
session of mineral claim under
contract with slocaYor. py WIN
the person entering UNDERTAKES
-, do the Feuuiteut dos7 oSsiS :. .
MY or do other work which Woulo Nd
been sufficient to constitute asse
ment work. he will not be heara
4 assert the forfeiture OF the cla
rye for performance or the asse
p;sh ment work where such non-p
! II formance was the result OF ms
~ default. nor will he be permit
the to take advantage, at any ',li,e'
md account of such relation,
MIA |. s3 The failure to do the ann
80 ! esessment work upon a min
'',n clain1 does not of itself forfeit
20 ~ claim. a relocation by a third pa
III being essential to work q fort
or, ure Of the criminal locator's rig
- oninion by Brice. ID. j., Robe
q j and Parker, H., concurrini