Hulst v. Doerstler

Citations

• 11 S.D. 14
• 75 N.W. 270
• 1898 S.D. LEXIS 64

Syllabus

<p>1. One setting up two causes of action is not estopped by inconsistent declarations therein, where he is not required to elect on which cause ho will rely. '</p> <p>2. One is not estopped to assert an interest in a mining claim by reason of having filed an adverse claim under another location, where the other co-owner has not acted on it.</p> <p>3. One co-owner attempting to exclude another from a mining claim by a relocation does not thereby abandon the land.</p>