Skip to main content
· 2/28/1901

Patterson v. Hewitt

Citations

  • 11 N.M. 1
  • 555 L.R.A. 658

Syllabus

<p>SYLLABUS.</p> <p>1. Where claimants of conflicting mining claims, enter into a verbal agreement by tbe terms of which all of their former locations should be abandoned; that certain new locations should be made in the name of one of the parties, on condition that each of the parties shall perform their pro rata share of the work neees-. sary to make and maintain such new locations and procure patents for the same; one of the parties left the Territory in 1883, prior to the performance of his share of the labor required, leaving agents to represent him, and another left the Territory in 1885, after such work was performed and a demand for deed was made, leaving agent who also made demand for deed, which was refused; in th« absence of these non-residents, the other claimants performing their pro rata share of the labor required, and other parties, contributed large sums of money, and performed a large amount of labor for several years, for the development of the claims — which were of purely speculative value when the non-resident claimants left the territory — the result of which was the discovery and extraction of large quantities of valuable ores, and in great enhancement in' the value of the property in the year 1890 and subsequent years, to the accomplishment of which results, neither the non-resident claimants nor their agents contributed either money, labor, or in any manner whatever. April 23, 1893, said non-resident claimants, C. Ewing Patterson and Henry J. Patterson, brought suit to recover a one-fourth interest in said mining claims, and also for an accounting for money received from ores taken therefrom, and for the enforcement of a trust, alleging performance of labor and demand for deed prior to the departure of Henry J. Patterson in April, 1885, and algo the failure and refusal of John Y. Hewitt who made the locations, to execute and deliver deeds, etc. Held: that under the circumstances of this case, the complainants were guilty of laches in equity

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • discussing this disagreement, contrasting Hodge’s Case, 2 East P.C. 658 (1790), in which the court admitted testimony that the defendant described the place where the stolen goods were found, with Harvey’s Case, 2 East P.C. 658 (1800

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Crumpacker, McFie, Mills, Parker

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.