Reagan v. McKibben
Citations
- 11 S.D. 270
- 76 N.W. 943
- 1898 S.D. LEXIS 112
Syllabus
<p>1. Under Comp. Laws, g 5090, Subd 4, providing that, when the motion for a new trial is msi,de upon the minutes of the court, the specification of errors relied on must be made in the notice of intention, it is unnecessary that such specification be set out in the bill of exceptions.</p> <p>2. A notice of intention to move for a now trial, which contains specifications of errors sufficient to call the attention of the trial court to the particular errors of law relied on, and which presents substantially all the questions discussed, is a sufficient statement thereof.</p> <p>3. The findings of the trial court will be reversed only when against the clear preponderance of the evidence.</p> <p>4. One who conveys his interest in a mining claim to another, in consideration of the latter talcing charge of the property and paying him one-half the proceeds arising- from working the mine, or a sale thereof, retains no equitable interest therein.</p> <p>5. Defendant and three others were, in 1895, owners in common of.a mining-' claim. After defendant had conveyed his interest to another, he discovered that his claim was too wj.de, leaving a small fraction on one side not located, and called the attention of the owners thereto, who instructed him to locate it, which he did. Nothing was said about locating it in trust for the company. Defendant divided the boundaries of the fraction, by stakes, and he and a, laborer did some work upon it, and one of the partners also did some work upon it. The evidence was conflicting as to who sunk the discovery shaft. In 1806 the fraction became valuable. Held, that a finding- that defendant located the fraction for himself alone, and not in trust for any one, would not be disturbed.</p> <p>6. An agreement to locate a mining- claim for the benefit or in trust for others, if made prior to tliejocation, is valid, although uot.in writing.</p> <p>7. An agreement to convey an interest in a mining claim, or a declaration of trust, not in writing
Judges: Corson
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
15 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Henry v. TaylorSouth Dakota Supreme Court· 1903-02-04· cited 19×
- Bates v. SmithSouth Dakota Supreme Court· 1925-10-28· cited 17×
- Mecum v. MetzWyoming Supreme Court· 1924-02-05· cited 12×
- Erickson v. WebberSouth Dakota Supreme Court· 1931-06-23· cited 12×
- McMahon v. CrockettSouth Dakota Supreme Court· 1899-09-02· cited 7×
- Gingles v. Savings BankSouth Dakota Supreme Court· 1914-03-21· cited 7×
- Empson v. Reliance Gold Mining Co.South Dakota Supreme Court· 1909-06-26· cited 6×
- International Harvester Co. of America v. McKeeverSouth Dakota Supreme Court· 1906-11-16· cited 5×
- Henderson v. Hughes CountySouth Dakota Supreme Court· 1900-08-29· cited 4×
- Jackson v. Prior Hill Min. Co.South Dakota Supreme Court· 1905-07-06· cited 4×
- Littlejohn v. County Line Creamery Co.South Dakota Supreme Court· 1901-04-02· cited 3×
- Wenke v. HallSouth Dakota Supreme Court· 1903-07-22· cited 3×
- Clarke v. ConnersSouth Dakota Supreme Court· 1904-12-07· cited 3×
- Lee v. DwyerSouth Dakota Supreme Court· 1906-04-03· cited 2×
- Lennan v. Pollock State BankSouth Dakota Supreme Court· 1907-02-13
Cites
5 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Belk v. MeagherSupreme Court· 1881-12-18· cited 306×
- Forbes v. GraceySupreme Court· 1877-05-18· cited 135×
- Randall v. Burk TownshipSouth Dakota Supreme Court· 1893-11-24· cited 70×
- Moritz v. LavelleCalifornia Supreme Court· 1888-06-22· cited 25×
- Gorman Mining Co. v. AlexanderSouth Dakota Supreme Court· 1892-03-02· cited 2×
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.