Turner v. Enstrom
Citations
- 5 Alaska 118
Syllabus
<p>1. Mechanics’ Liens &wkey;137(l)—Mines and Minerals.</p> <p>While the act of Congress applicable to mechanics’ liens in Alaska requires that the notice of the lien recorded shall contain the names of the owners, or reputed owners, of the ground upon which the lien is claimed, it is well established that failure to include the names of all the owners does not render the notice void, but that it may be enforced against the owners named, the only effect of the omission of the name of the omitted owner being to exempt hi's interest from the operation of the lien. The omission of the name of the co-owner from the lien notice does not render the lien ineffective as against the other owners.</p> <p>2„ Mechanics’ Liens <&wkey;263(l)—Enforcement—Parties.</p> <p>The omission of the name of a co-owner from the notice of a mechanic’s lien does not render the lien void as against the other owners named. The omitted owner is not a necessary party to. the action to foreclose the lien. His interest in the property cannot be bound by any judgment given in the foreclosure suit from which he was omitted.</p> <p>3. Mines and Minerals <&wkey;112(2)—Mechanics’ Liens—Improvement oe the Property.</p> <p>In Alaska a lien can be had for labor performed upon a mine only when it tends to the improvement or development of the mine. Work done in the course of actual mining operations, involving the extraction of gold, not tending to the development or improvement of the mine, but rather to the lessening of the value by the extraction of the gold therefrom, is not lienable under the law.</p> <p><&wkey;>See same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes</p> <p>4. Mechanics’ Liens <&wkey;>78—Mines and Minerals <&wkey;113—Notice of Nonliability.</p> <p>Tlie owner of a mining claim leased it to operators. Tlie operators worked the claim and their employes filed liens. The lessor and owner posted two notices of nonliability for the debts of the lessees on the property. The notices we
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- holding that jurisdiction over Title VII settlement agreements is independent from jurisdiction over Title VII claims
- if a plaintiffs job application is rejected because of a former Government employer’s breach of a grievance settlement agreement to provide a neutral employment reference, a court can “fashion a remedy for the plaintiff’
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Fueler
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced 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.