Case Name: BINSWANGER et al. v. HENNINGER et al.
Court: Alaska District Court
Jurisdiction: Alaska
Decision Date: 1902-03-15
Citations: 1 Alaska 509
Docket Number: No. 409
Parties: BINSWANGER et al. v. HENNINGER et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Alaska Reports
Volume: 1
Pages: 509–516

Head Matter:
BINSWANGER et al. v. HENNINGER et al.
(Second Division. Nome.
March 15, 1902.)
No. 409.
1. Mines and Minerals — Tenancy in Common.
A mining claim is real property. By section 62 of the CiviT Code of Alaska (Act June 6, 1900, c. 786, 31 Stat. 501) joint tenancy is abolished, and all persons having undivided interests in. real property, including mines, are tenants in common.
2. Descent and Distribution — Estates.
Real property descends directly to the heir upon the death of the ancestor, “subject to his debts.” The only jurisdiction of the probate court lies to enforce the lien of the ancestor's debts-against the real property. If there are no debts, the heir becomes vested at once with the title of the ancestor.
3. Mines and Minerals — Injunction—Tenancy in Common.
One tenant in common may maintain an action for the recovr ery of a mining claim without joining his co-tenants as parties.One co-tenant may enjoin another from waste or from appropriating the entire proceeds of the mine.
4. Contracts — Partnership.
Where several parties sign a mutual contract to locate and! work mines in Alaska between two specified dates, one of the-parties who locates a mine in his own name and interest between the dates mentioned has the burden of proof to show that the contract had been mutually rescinded prior to his location!
On the 26th day of April, 1898, at Seattle, King county, Wash*., Albert Speer, Adolph Binswanger, A. J. Lawrence,. Samuel Henninger, Charles Coburn, and O. T. Collins made, signed, and acknowledged an agreement of copartnership, as-they called it, whereby they agreed to jointly locate and work mines in Alaska until October 1, 1899, and that all mines located by either party during that period in Alaska should become the property of the copartnership. On or about July 7,. 1899, one of these parties, Samuel Henninger, located the Anny placer mine, near Nome, in his own name, and in violation of the alleged rights of his copartners, and on July 5, 1901, he sold it to the defendants Carter, Boland, Mason, and Pearse, and placed the deed in escrow with the Alaska Banking & Safe Deposit Company as trustee.
It further appears that about September 25, 1899, A. J. Lawrence and Albert Speer, two of the partners, died; that prior to his death Speer sold a one undivided half interest in all of his Alaska mining interests to plaintiff Cassie S. Marcy. This suit is now brought by Binswanger and Coburn, two of the original partners, with W. N. Lawrence, Alden M. Lawrence, Elizabeth R. Stansberry, née Lawrence, Bede M. Lawrence, and M. S. Lawrence, as the heirs at law of A. J. Lawrence, deceased, and one of the copartners, and Cassie S. Marcy, representing a one-half interest in Albert Speer’s share, against Samuel Henninger, a partner,'and his grantees, to determine and declare the title of the plaintiffs in the Anny mine, and to enjoin the delivery of the deed from Plenninger to his grantees. All of the original parties to the agreement of April 26, 1898, are made parties, or are represented, except Olaf T. Collins and an undivided one-half interest held by Albert Speer.
To the amended complaint alleging these facts a demurrer is filed upon the grounds: (1) That the heirs of A. J. Lawrence, merely as such, and without proper probate proceedings, cannot maintain the suit as plaintiffs; (2) that it can only be maintained, so far as the Lawrence interest is concerned, by his personal representatives, an administrator or executor; (3) that there is a defect of parties plaintiff, owing to the absence of the personal representatives of Albert Speer; and (4) that the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against the defendants. No objection is urged in the demurrer to the fact that Col lins is neither a plaintiff nor a defendant, nor his interest put in litigation.
P. J. Coston, for plaintiffs.
James E. Fenton and C. S. Hannum, for defendants.

Opinion:
WICKERSHAM, District Judge.
A mining claim is real property. By the provisions of section 62, Civ. Code, p. 367, Carter (a re-enactment of the Oregon Code in force at the time of the agreement in question), joint tenancy is abolished, and all persons having an undivided interest in real property are to be deemed and considered tenants in common. The parties to the agreement of April 26,1898, if at all interested in the Anny claim, were co-tenants, and not mining partners. Sections 788 and 796, 2 Findley on Mines. Real property descends directly to the heir upon the death of the ancestor 'subject to his debts." Section 168, Civ. Code, p. 384, Carter. The heir obtains title by descent, and not through the process of the probate court. His title vests immediately upon the death of the ancestor, and the only jurisdiction through probate lies to enforce the lien of the ancestor's debts against the real property. If there are no debts, the heir becomes vested at once with a complete title. Lohmann v. Helmer (C. C.) 104 Fed. 178. If the ancestor was a co-tenant, the heir stands in his place. Speer's sale of an undivided half interest was valid, and Marcy became, a co-tenant in the mine. A tenant in common may maintain an action for the recovery of a mining claim without joining his co-tenant. Morenhaut v. Wilson, 52 Cal. 263; Weise v. Barker (Colo. Sup.) 2 Pac. 919. As to the right of the plaintiffs, as co-tenants, to enjoin the defendants from extracting and converting the gold to their exclusive use, Lindley says:
"It may be generally conceded, particularly in the precious metal bearing states where the reformed procedure has been adopted, that Where a co-tenant in possession, who either works in so unskillful a manner as to amount to destructive waste, or, being in possession under an unequivocal hostile assertion of exclusive title, seeks to appropriate the entire product to his own use, an injunction will lie at the instigation of the injured co-tenant. The remedy at law by an action of trespass or trover for rents and profits, or one sounding in damages only, might he wholly inadequate." 2 Lindley, § 790.
The demurrer will be overruled.