2 Alaska

Volume 2 — Alaska Reports

85 opinions

2 Alaska 1Woods v. Beaton (1903)
The motion for a new trial in this case was made on November 5, 1901, before Judge Wickersham, and was by him heard upon all the records, papers, proceedings, and files in the case and the affidavit of C. S. Hannum, Esq. On December 14, 1901, Judge Wickersham filed an opinion (1 Alaska, 344), wherein he left the case undetermined, for the reason that Judge Noyes was then still in office, and possibly might return to Nome during the time limited for perfecting the appeal to…
2 Alaska 4Willamette Tent & Awning Co. v. West Coast Grocery Co. (1903)
This action was brought, as appears by the original complaint on file, in the name of the Willamette Tent & Awning Company, “a corporation.” Later plaintiff moved for permission to strike out the words “a corporation” from the title of the cause, leaving it stand “The Willamette Tent & Awning Company.” But at the same time the plaintiff filed an affidavit to the effect that the real party in interest was one H. Wemme, who was doing business in the name of the Willamette Tent…
2 Alaska 8Seittn v. Alaska Treadwell Gold M. Co. (1903)
On Motion to Instruct the Jury for Defendant. The plaintiff in this case alleges, in brief, as follows: That on the 25th day of March, 1902, he was the servant of the defendant corporation, and as such employed in operating what is called a “machine drill,” which machine drill was situated in what is called the “Glory Hole” in the Alaska Treadwell Company’s mine, the said Glory Hole being a pit or quarry excavated to a considerable depth, and an unusually unsafe and…
2 Alaska 33Crawford v. Burr (1903)
This is a suit in ejectment to recover a tract of land 100 feet wide fronting on Reservation avenue, and extending back therefrom 214 feet. It is conceded by both parties that the tract was embraced in the Valdez military reservation at all times in question till the formal opening of the reservation on July 25, 1902.
2 Alaska 39Copper River Lumber Co. v. Humphreys (1903)
The land in controversy in this action lies in front of the town of Valdez, and consists of a tract extending from Broadway to Reservation avenue and from lot A abutting on Front street to deep water on Valdez Bay. The tract was located previous to any of the times in question between plaintiff and defendant by Crawford and Rutherford, doing business as the Valdez Mill Company.
2 Alaska 43Williams v. Alaska Commercial Co. (1903)
1. New Trial — Motion—Statement of Grounds. The object of a motion for a new trial is to call the attention of the court specifically to the errors that are claimed to have been made during the trial, that the court may have an opportunity to investigate those questions anew; and if he finds error has been committed to award a new trial without subjecting the parties moving to the expense of taking the case to a higher court. [Ed. Note. — For cases in point, see vol. 37, Cent. Dig. New Trial, § 254.] 2. Same — Specification of Errors. A motion for a new trial which does not specify the ground therefor, in compliance with section 229 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is not sufficient under the statute, and will not be regarded by the court. [Ed. Note. — For eases in point, see vol. 37, Cent. Dig. New Trial, §§ 254-257.] 3. Same. Where a motion for a new trial states the ground generally “that such verdict is against the law,” it is insufficient, it is not “plainly specified” as required by statute, and does not give notice to tbe court or opposing counsel of tlie specific error or point relied upon. '• [Ed. Note. — For cases in point, see vol. 37, Cent. Dig. ■ New Trial, § 261.] 4. Same. A motion for a new trial wliieb states “that such verdict is against the law” is not sustained by showing that the verdict is not sustained by the evidence. .[Ed. Note. — For cases in point, see vol. 37, Cent. Dig. New Trial, § 261.] 5. Same. A statement in a motion for a new trial generally, “error in law occurring at the trial and. excepted to by the defendant herein,” is insufficient; it should specifically point out the error complained of. [Ed. Note. — For cases in point, see vol. 37, Cent. Dig. New Trial, §§ 254-257.] 6. Same — Evidence—Trial. If exception or objection is heard to the ruling of the court on the admission of evidence, the question and answer should be set forth in the motion for a new trial, and the ground of objection stated as on the trial, so that the court may have its attention specifically directed to the claimed erroneous ruling. [Ed. Note. — For cases in point, see vol. 37, Cent. Dig. New Trial, § 258.] 7. Same — Exception—Trial. If exception is taken to a particular instruction of the court, the instruction objected to should be quotio in hsee verba -in the motion for a new trial, and the ruling of the court thereon indicated in detail. [Ed. Note. — For cases in point, see vol. 37, Cent. Dig. New Trial, § 259.] 8. Same — Demurbek—Evidence. Where a ground of motion for a new trial is the insufficiency of the evidence on a particular point, the particulars thereof must be specifically pointed out, and where the motion is based upon the total failure of proof, where it is intended as a general demurrer to the evidence, it may be stated in the language of the statute, as “insufficiency of the evidence to justify the verdict or other decision.” [Ed. Note. — For cases in point, see vol. 37, Cent. Dig. New Trial, §§ 258, 259.] 9. Same. All errors occuring on the trial, to be taken advantage of on an appeal, must be clearly stated in the motion for a new trial, and any not included in the motion for a new trial will not be regarded. The general rule is that the grounds of a motion for a new trial must be stated so specifically as to direct the attention of the court and opposing counsel to the precise errors complained of. The mere statement of the ground, without further specification, will therefore be insufficient. The court will not, upon the statutory statement only, wade through the whole record, and examine each ruling and instruction to ascertain if error was committed, but will deny the motion for noncompliance with section 229, Code Civ. Proc. [Ed. Note. — For cases in point, see vol. 37, Cent. Dig. New Trial, §§ 254-257.] * 10. Same — Grounds—Vebdict Contrary to Evidence. AVhere there is a fair conflict of testimony, the court will not grant a new trial, even though the judge might have found different upon the same evidence. Where the weight of evidence is so manifestly against the verdict that it is evident that the jury were influenced by prejudice or passion, it would be the imperative duty of the court to set the verdict aside, and a failure to do so would be an abuse of discretion. [Ed. Note. — For cases in point, see vol. 37, Cent. Dig. New Trial, §§ 135-148.] 11. Death — Damages. A verdict for $5,000 in an action for damages for causing the death of a man 21 years old, in good health, and capable of earning good wages, held, not excessive. [Ed. Note. — For cases in point, see vol. 15, Cent. Dig. Death, §§*125-130.] 12. Trial — Instructions—New Tbial. It is not error for a trial court, in its instructions to a jury, to state so much of the admitted facts as may be necessary to illustrate and apply the law to the case on trial. 13. Admiralty — Damages—Torts. The steamer Bertha engaged to tow the schooner Dora B. toLituya Bay, but owing to rough wheather passed that port and steered for Yakutat. Before reaching Yakutat, and while ofi the coast of Alaska, the hawser parted. Instead of returning to the tow and rendering further assistance, the Bertha kept on her course, abandoning the Dora B., which was carried on the coast and wrecked, and the deceased lost his life. Held, that it is immaterial that the parting of the hawser happened over three miles off shore and out of the jurisdiction of the court, it appearing that the disaster which caused the decedent’s death happened upon the shore within the three-mile limit and within the jurisdiction of the court. 14. Same — Damages—Jurisdiction—Negligence. A suit in admiralty cannot be maintained in a court of the United States, either under the general maritime law or any act of Congress, to recover damages for the death of a person’Caused by negligence on the high seas.
2 Alaska 66Marks v. Shoup (1903)
1. New Trial. A motion for a new trial which does not plainly specify the errors of the trial court will not be regarded. [Ed. Note. — For eases in point, see vol. 37, Cent. Dig. New-Trial, §§ 251 — 257.] 2. Same., A motion for a new trial, stating the ground of “insufficiency of the evidence to justify the verdict and the order of the court directing the same, and that such verdict and order are against the law,” considered as a general demurrer to the evidence. [Ed. Note. — For eases in point, see vol. 37, Cent. Dig. New Trial, § 261.] 3. Same — Newly Discovered Evidence. Motion for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence. Held, that newly discovered evidence means evidence discovered since the last trial; evidence then known to either client or attorney is not newly discovered. [Ed. Note. — For cases in point, see vol. 37, Cent. Dig. New Trial, §§ 205, 206.] 4. Same. Newly discovered evidence, to be sufficient, must fulfill all the following requirements: (1) It must be such as will probably change the result if a new trial is granted; (2) it must be discovered since the trial; (3) it must be such as could not have been discovered before the trial by the exercise of due diligence; (4) it must be material to the issue; (5) it must not be merely cumulative to the former testimony; and (6) it must not be merely impeaching or contradictory of the former evidence. [Ed. Note. — For cases in point, see vol. 37, Cent. Dig. New Trial, §§ 226, 205, 206, 210-223.]
2 Alaska 74United States v. Ames Mer. Co. (1903)
1. CORPORATIONS — Indictment. A corporation may be indicated under the United States statutes for carrying on business as a wholesale or retail liquor dealer without paying the license required by section 3244, Rev. St. U. S. 1878 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 2096], [Ed. Note. — For cases in point, see yol. 12, Cent. Dig. Corporations, § 2138.]
2 Alaska 77Frye-Bruhn Co. v. Meyer (1903)
On March 21, 1902, the plaintiff filed its bill of complaint in this court, setting forth, in brief, that the firye-Bruhn Company was a corporation, was the owner of a judgment against defendant obtained in the superior court of the state of Washington in and for the county of King in the sum of $3,140.10, and costs amounting to $26, with interest from June 28, 1899, setting forth in hasc verba the judgment that had been taken in said court.
2 Alaska 82Chase v. Alaska F. & L. Co. (1903)
This action was tried before a jury on February 13, 1903, and the jury returned a verdict for plaintiff in the sum of $1,773.
2 Alaska 93United States v. Beasly (1903)
J. C. Beasly was indicted by a grand jury of the Second Division of the District of Alaska at Nome in 1903. Four separate indictments were returned by said grand jury against Beasly, and a change of venue was taken from said Second Division to the First Division and to the court thereof being held in Juneau.
2 Alaska 104Allison v. The Steamer Lavelle Young (1903)
Admiralty. This is an action brought by the libelant to recover wages claimed to be due him for services as cook aboard the respondent steamer. Amount claimed, $658. The monition authorizing the seizure of the steamer issued August 11, 1900, and the case was duly proceeded in till the rendition of a decree in favor of libelant September 24, 1901, for the debt claimed, $658, for penalty for nonpayment of wages when due $66.66, together with costs.
2 Alaska 108In re Habeas Corpus of Burkell (1903)
The petitioner brings habeas corpus to procure his release from imprisonment in the jail at Rampart, Alaska, where he is confined upon conviction before a justice of the peace for the crime of petit larceny for stealing a dog.
2 Alaska 120Ketchikan Co. v. Citizens' Co. (1903)
The plaintiff corporation filed its bill of complaint in this case on June 6, 1903, wherein it is alleged, in addition to facts showing an interference with the water rights of the plaintiff company and the building of the dam, etc., that endangered the existence of its plant, that an emergency existed for the granting of the preliminary injunction pending a suit, owing to the work upon the dam, which it was alleged was rapidly being pushed to completion, and if completed…
2 Alaska 132Monahan v. Lynch (1903)
This is an application to the equity power of the court for relief from the alleged wrongful acts of the defendant Lynch in enforcing an ordinance passed by the town of Valdez providing for licensing dogs, and impounding and destroying those upon which no license tax is paid.
2 Alaska 134Copper River Mining Co. v. McClellan (1903)
This is a suit in equity, the bill concluding with a prayer for a decree adjudging:' (1) That the locators of that certain group of copper mines particularly described therein, and commonly known as the “Bonanza Group,” were at the time they located the said mines acting as the agents, servants, and employés of the plaintiff; (2) that plaintiff is the owner of said mines; (3) that the defendants hold the legal possession and title with prior notice of plaintiff’s equities,…
2 Alaska 158United States v. Meyers (1903)
On the 30th day of August, 1902, one George A. Hill, a deputy marshal, filed in the commissioner's court at Douglas, Alaska, a complaint against one Antone Meyers, charging him with having sold intoxicating liquor to an Indian.
2 Alaska 165Reams v. McAlpine (1903)
1. New Trial — Special Findings — -Failure to Find — Objection— Necessity. Where a jury to whom special findings are submitted, with forms of a general verdict, return a general verdict for plaintiff and certain of the special findings in line therewith, and the defendant’s attorneys being present do not ask to have the jury sent back to complete the special findings, nor object to the findings or verdict made, nor to the discharge of the jury, held a waiver, and not a ground for a new trial. [Ed. Note. — For cases in point, see vol. 37, Gent. Dig. New Trial, § 149.] 2. Same — Verdict Contrary to Evidence. Where there is evidence in favor of a verdict, and no motion to instruct for the defendant, a verdict for plaintiff will be sustained, though the court upon the same evidence would have found for the defendant. [Ed. Note. — For cases in point, see vol. 37, Cent. Dig. New Trial, § 144.]
2 Alaska 166Gibson v. Langdon (1903)
This case comes before the court on a demurrer to the plaintiff’s petition. The demurrer challenges the sufficiency on two grounds: First. That there .is a defect of parties plaintiff herein, in that the Alaska Steamship Company, the plaintiff’s codefendant in the court below, is not made a party to the petition for review. Second.
2 Alaska 175Fish v. Hemple (1903)
This is a suit to recover double the amount .of usurious interest paid by the plaintiff to the' defendant, under the provisions of section 357 of the Civil Code of Alaska. Upon the trial the court instructed the jury, in effect, that the plaintiff was entitled to recover double the amount of all the interest paid, if they found from the evidence that any portion thereof was usurious.
2 Alaska 177Lindeberg v. Doverspike (1904)
At the trial of this suit the question raised by the pleadings and submitted to the court was: Are the plaintiffs under the evidence entitled to a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from polluting the waters of the Moonlight springs by running the surface waters used by them in sluicing upon their claim down the natural watershed at the base of Anvil mountain into Moonlight creek and Moonlight springs?
2 Alaska 182Dryden v. Sewell (1904)
Th)e complaint in this action alleges that the plaintiff and defendant are copartners in a certain drug business at Haines, Alaska, and leading up to the general statement it is alleged that Lane and Sewell entered into a copartnership on the 24th .day of July, 1902, and that thereafter, at the instance and request of the defendant, Sewell, the plaintiff, by and through his agent and attorney in fact, at the instance and request of said Sewell, and by agreement with him,…
2 Alaska 191Karl v. Pilkington (1904)
, The motion for injunction is made pending an action to recover the possession of a town lot in the city of Nome, ar.d prays for a mandatory injunction commanding and compelling the defendant to restore to the premises the dwelling house which was removed therefrom by the defendant since the rendering of the verdict for the plaintiff at the trial of said action. A motion for a new trial is now pending and undisposed of.
2 Alaska 194Morency v. Floyd (1904)
An application to restrain work on placer mining claim No. 6 above discovery on Fairbanks creek, and to appoint a receiver, with instructions to take charge of the cleanrup of the dumps now on the surface, and to hold the proceeds pending litigation.
2 Alaska 200In re Naturalization of Minook (1904)
John Minook, whose true name is Ivan Pavlof, is the son of a Russian trader at St. Michael and an Eskimo mother. Both parents were members of the Russian Church, were married in and according to the rites and observances of the church, and their son, the applicant herein, was born in 1849 at St. Michael in the Russian possessions in North America.
2 Alaska 224Johnson v. Pacific Coast S. S. Co. (1904)
This action is brought in the equity side of the court for th|c purpose of having certain deeds made by the trustee of the town site of Juneau to Waterbury and Cooledge set aside, on the ground that the same were fraudulently obtained by said parties, and the conveyances made by said Waterbury and Cooledge to the defendant, the Pacific Coast Steamship Company, a corporation, in pursuance to the same fraudulent purpose.
2 Alaska 249Thompson v. Burk (1904)
Suit in ejectment, jury waived, and trial before the court. Defendant, Burk,, first located the placer mining claim in controversy on February 11, 1903. He set four corner stakes and two center stakes. Upon one of his center staktes he wrote a notice of his location, and wrote his name on the corner stakes. He prepared his notice of location, and caused it to be filed and recorded in the recorder’s office on April 15, 1903, and within the time required by law.
2 Alaska 257United States v. Roth (1904)
Action against the defendant under section 67, Penal Code of Alaska, for trespassing on lands in the possession of another.' The admitted facts in this case show that one C. H. Heine entered Garden Island, opposite the town of Fairbanks, as a homestead on May 6,1904; that it borders on the Chena river, which is admitted to be a navigable stream; that Roth subsequently entered upon that part of the land between high and low water, opposite the town, at the side of the bridge…
2 Alaska 265Miocene Ditch Co. v. Lyng (1904)
The dejnurrer of defendant? to the amended complaint stands upon three grounds, to wit: (1) The court has not jurisdiction of the subject of the action. (2) That the amended complaint does not. state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. (3) That said complaint does not state a public use which will authorize the plaintiff to exercise the right of eminent domain.
2 Alaska 269McGinley v. Cleary (1904)
On the 29th of last November the plaintiff was, and for some time previous thereto had been, one of the proprietors of that certain two-story log cabin described in the pleadings as the “Fairbanks Hotel,” situate upon lot 1, Front street, in the town of Fairbanks, Alaska.
2 Alaska 278McMahon v. Meehan (1904)
Plaintiff and defendant Meehan, at Nome, Alaska, in 1900 and 1901 engaged in prospecting. With one Burk they undertook to sink holes to bed rock on a placer mining claim on Tissue river, north of Nome, upon an agreement with the owner that the three should receive one-half of the claim upon the completion of the work. Plaintiff paid for two-thirds of the food supply used on that contract and Burk a third part.
2 Alaska 286Barnette v. Freeman (1904)
Suit in ejectment to recover possession of a placer mining claim, known as a side claim, on the right limit to No. 1 creek claim on Cleary creek, in the Fairbanks mining district, Alaska. The claim was first located by plaintiff E. T. Barnette as the attorney in fact for E. R. Barnette on October 2, 1902.
2 Alaska 292Lindbloom v. Kidston (1904)
This is a suit to foreclose a mortgage given to the plaintiff, Erik O. Eindbloom, by William Kidston, one of the defendants, to secure the payment of a promissory note for $2,500, dated December 16, 1899, payable in gold coin, with 5 per cent, interest thereon in like gold coin one year from the date thereof.
2 Alaska 298Windmuller v. Clarkson (1904)
This is a suit to enforce specific performance of a contract for the joint location of placer mining claims, and to declare the defendants trustees for the plaintiff's interest in four placer mines on the Sushitna river, so located by them, under the contract whereby plaintiff claims a one-fifth interest therein.
2 Alaska 301Howard v. Lindeberg (1904)
Injunction — Bonds—Breach. The condition of an injunction bond is broken by a dissolution of the injunction. The right of action accrues at once. The right is not stayed by an appeal from the final judgment. [Ed. Note. — For cases in point, see vol. 27, Cent. Dig. Injunction, §§ 533-535; vol. 2, Cent. Dig. Appeal and Error, §§ 2277, 2278.]
2 Alaska 303Alaska Commercial Co. v. Debney (1904)
On June 15, 1903, the plaintiff brought a suit before this court at Eagle, Alaska, to recover the sum of $6,519.50, interest and costs, from the defendant, upon a judgment rendered in the Territorial Court of the Yukon Territory, Canada, at Dawson, Y. T. The substance of the complaint is: Paragraph 1 alleges that the plaintiff is a corporation organized under the laws of California; that it has complied with the requirements of the laws of Alaska relating to foreign…
2 Alaska 325Sylvester's Adm'r v. Willson's Adm'rs (1905)
Bill in equity by L. H. Wakefield, as administrator de bonis non of the estate of Rufus Sylvester, deceased, against Mary A. Willson and T. C. McHugh, administrators of the… Held: and now hold, the two offices, to wit, special administrators of the-estate of Thomas A. Willson, deceased, and administrators of the estate of Willson & Sylvester. As administrators of the partnership estate, they filed on October 26, 1903, the first semiannual account of their administration.
2 Alaska 343Raymond v. Hemple (1905)
1. Interest — Statutes Construed — Rate Allowed. Section 255 of the Civil Code of Alaska, fixing the rate of interest which may be agreed on, construed. Held, the words “per annum” are understood according to standard rules of grammar; that the section is not ambiguous. 2. Usury — Interest—Statutes Construed — Amount Recoverable. The Alaska usury law was adopted from Texas, and, following the decisions of the courts of that state, held, that one who is compelled to pay usurious interest may recover double all the interest paid as damages by civil suit. [Ed. Note. — For cases in point, see vol. 47, Cent. Dig. Usury, § 258.]
2 Alaska 344First National Bank v. Fish (1905)
The complaint alleges that, on the 18th day of December,. 1903, the defendant Loomis purchased from one Sol G. Simpson certain goods, wares, merchandise, horses, and outfit to the amount of $5,000, and to secure payment therefor gave his individual note to Simpson, payable one year after date, with interest at 10 per cent, per annum; that on the 5th day of February, 1903, the defendants, Loomis and Fish, became partners, under the name of the “Loomis Transportation Company”;…
2 Alaska 351School Board v. Common Council (1905)
This is an action begun by the school board of the Nome school district against the common council of the city of Nome, Alaska, praying that a writ of mandamus issue, against the defendant for the purpose of compelling it to turn over to the treasurer of the school board of the Nome school district all moneys in defendant’s hands available for school purposes.
2 Alaska 360Murray v. Farrell (1905)
1.' Pleading — Demubbeb—Admissions. Demurrer to a complaint does not admit conclusions of law alleged in the complaint. [Ed. Note. — For cases in point, see vol. 39, Cent. Dig. Pleading, § 527.] 2. Limitation oe Actions — Nonbesidents. That section of the Code of Alaska' which provides that the statutory term of limitation may be extended when the cause of action lies against a person “out of the district or concealed therein at the time when it accrues” applies only to a state of facts or a condition wherein the cause of action matures against a person or persons whose status is that of a resident or residents of Alaska. [Ed. Note. — For cases in point, see vol. 33, Cent. Dig. Limitation of Actions; §§ 441, 468.] 3. Same — What Law Goveens — Action—Nonbesidents. Defendant became indebted in 1896 in the state of Montana. Before the debt was barred by the statute of that state, he removed to Alaska. Upon suit against him here, he demurs, on . the ground that the action is barred by the statute of Alaska. Held, that the statutes of limitation of Montana have no force in Alaska, and that the action is barred by the statutes of Alaska, which limit the time to six years. [Ed. Note. — For cases in point, see vol. 33, Cent. Dig. Limitation of Actions, § 4.]
2 Alaska 363Revenue Min. Co. v. Balderston (1905)
Plaintiff and defendant have submitted an agreed case to the court for decision and judgment, under the provisions of chapter 28 of the Code of Civil Procedure (sections 248-250, p. 195, Carter’s Ann. Codes), involving the right of possession and use of certain described water rights for mining purposes near Cape Yaktag. The agreed statement of facts is signed by both plaintiff and defendant and verified by each according to law.
2 Alaska 370Gavigan v. Crary (1905)
The Copper River Exploring Expedition was organized March 17, 1899, at Washington, D. C., pursuant to general order No. 51 issued from the War Department.
2 Alaska 383Miners' Co-operative Ass'n v. The Monarch (1905)
Libelant is a voluntary association of about 30 miners on Fairbanks, Cleary, and Pedro creeks, organized in the spring of 1904 for the purpose of procuring a season’s supply of. mining goods and groceries from Seattle for each of the members. R. N. McLeod was recognized as the head of its executive committee, and R. A. Chisholm was selected and acted as its purchasing agent and general manager.
2 Alaska 387Daigle v. Maddocks (1905)
About the month of April, 1904, the plaintiff was the owner of Placer Mining Claim No. 6 below Discovery, first tier, right limit, on Cleary creek, in the Fairbanks mining district.
2 Alaska 391Runner v. Woitke (1905)
Plaintiff brings this action to recover one-third interest in lot and building in Fairbanks, sold to defendant, Woitke, by Taylor, plaintiff’s partner. His authority to sell is denied.
2 Alaska 397Bechtol v. Bechtol (1905)
Motion by Rosalind H. Bechtol for leave to intervene in this action. Her motion alleges that she and Charles W. Bechtol, one of the defendants, and the son of the plaintiff herein, were married on December 22, 1904, and continued to live together as husband and wife until April 17, 1905, when by the advice and procurement of his father her husband abandoned her, leaving her without any means of support, and has gone to parts unknown.
2 Alaska 402Redden v. Harlan (1905)
On June 19, 1904, plaintiffs, Redden and Dempsey, respectively, set stakes and claimed placer mining.claims Nos. 8 and 9 below discovery on Cripple Creek, in the Fairbanks mining district, Alaska, and by filing their location notices within the time limited by law. They made no discovery of mineral on either claim at any time. On May 10, 1905, defendants formed an association of eight persons for the purpose of locating a tract of mining land of 160 acres.
2 Alaska 408Cascaden v. Dunbar (1905)
On or about the 30th day of November, 1902, the plaintiff, Cascaden, was a resident of Fairbanks, Alaska, and a prospector and miner by occupation.
2 Alaska 416Heine v. Roth (1905)
This is an application for equitable relief to abate a nuisance created by defendant by the erection of buildings upon the shore of the Chena river, which is admitted to be a navigable stream, between high and low water marks, and in front of plaintiff’s homestead.
2 Alaska 427Bulette v. Dodge (1905)
This' is a suit in equity to quiet title to bench placer mining claim No. 3, first tier above discovery, on the right limit of Dome creek, in the Fairbanks mining district, Alaska. The defendant Dodge located the claim on May 28, 1903, by marking thé boundaries and recording within the 90 days. A junior location was made by plaintiff by a similar marking and recording within 90 days.
2 Alaska 433Conradt v. Miller (1905)
This is a suit to abate a public nuisance caused by the erection by defendants of a wharf in front of plaintiff’s property in the incorporated town of Chena, and along the bank of the Tanana river.
2 Alaska 442United States v. Berrigan (1905)
This suit was brought in the name of the United States, as guardian or trustee, by the District Attorney under instructions from the Attorney General. The government brings the suit for Jarvis and Henry and their people, native Alaska Indians, to remove the defendants from a small tract of land-lying at the confluence of the Tanana and Little Delta rivers, and long occupied by these natives as a home and village site.
2 Alaska 451Steele v. Tanana Mines Ry. Co. (1905)
The pleadings and evidence show that one C. H. Heine entered Garden Island, lying opposite the town of Fairbanks, Alaska, as a homestead on the 25th day of April, 1903, and that said entry was at all times mentioned in this case and now is a valid homestead entry. This island is bounded on the south and west by the Chena river, a navigable stream, and on the east and north by a dry slough, wherein there is a current from the Chena river only at times of high water.
2 Alaska 459United States v. Manthei's Bondsmen (1905)
This action was brought to recover the penalty of a statutory' undertaking or bail bond, conditioned for the appearance in the District Court of one Edward Manthei, charged before T. M. Reed, commissioner, with the crime of perjury. Manthei was admitted to bail by the commissioner on the 19th day of May, 1901. The bond was signed by the three defendants herein named and one E. T. Halloran.
2 Alaska 469Runner v. Woitke (1905)
1. New Trial — Form of Motion. A “notice of motion for a new trial,” setting out the formal grounds, and treated by both parties as a motion for a new trial, sufficient. [Ed. Note. — For cases in point, see vol. 37, Cent. Dig. New Trial, §§ 277, 278.] 2. New Tbial — Pleadings. The only point urged on the motion for a new trial was that the complaint showed that it was a law case, and not one in equity. Held, where this point was raised first on motion for a new trial, that mere errors in pleading cannot be reached on a motion for a new trial. [Ed. Note. — For cases in point, see vol. 37, Cent. Dig. New Trial, § 38.] 3. Pleading — Jurisdiction—New Tbial. If a complaint shows upon its face that the court has no jurisdiction, it is subject to demurrer and the ease to dismissal; but a new trial will not be granted for that reason.
2 Alaska 471White's Guardian v. Martin (1905)
By the act of June 6, 1900 (chapter 786, 31 Stat. 474), the probate court is given the power to appoint a guardian for the person and estate of insane persons. Sections 895, 896, and 897 provide: “See. 895.
2 Alaska 475Terrill v. Terrill (1905)
A suit for divorce being at issue, the case was called for trial. Both plaintiff and defendant were present with their respective attorneys and witnesses. Plaintiff was sworn as a witness in his own behalf, and testified that he and defendant were married in British Columbia in 1894, and removed to Wrangel, Alaska, about February 1, 1898, where they resided until August 1, 1899, when they removed to Dawson in the Yukon Territory.
2 Alaska 480United States v. Owens (1905)
An indictment was returned in this court at Eagle, Alaska, on August 8, 1902, charging defendant with murder in the first degree for the alleged killing of Carl Christensen on November 16, 1901, at Forty Mile river in this district. He was tried on that indictment, and on August 16, 1902, was convicted of the crime of murder in the second degree, and on August 19, 1902, was sentenced to 25 years imprisonment, in the penitentiary.
2 Alaska 484Nelson v. Meehan (1905)
Motion to vacate and set aside decree entered in this case .August 17, 1904, for fraud. Objection that the court has no jurisdiction. In December, 1903, the plaintiffs brought this suit in equity to enforce specific performance of the following contract: “Gold Stream, Feb. 6, 1903. “This agreement between M. Meehan and T. Larson, of the first part, and O. A. Nelson and G. M. Hensley, of the second part.
2 Alaska 495White's Guardian v. Martin (1905)
Demurrer to defendants’ further and separate answer. Upon its face this answer shows that in 1903 Andrew White entered upon two vacant town lots on Wendell avenue, in the town of Fairbanks, Alaska, and improved them by building houses, fences, and other improvements to such an extent that when his estate was appraised, as therein stated, it was declared to be of the value of $4,000.
2 Alaska 504Decker Bros. v. Berners Bay M. & M. Co. (1905)
Application by R. McM. Gillespie, Samuel Fairchild, and C. R. Corning, under the name and style of the “Reorganization Committee of the Berners Bay Mining & Milling Company,” for the removal of Frederick D. Nowell as receiver of the Berners Bay Mining & Milling Company.
2 Alaska 511Begenish v. Gates (1905)
Súit for Personal Injuries. Plaintiff was employed as a laborer in defendants’ mine. At the time of the accident his duty was to look after the bucket hoist loaded with gravel. When it was lowered into the mine and the ropes loosened the sheave lay on its side, and the wire hoist rope would drop off the wheel. When the engine on top-began to hoist, the rope would crowd between the wheel and the side of the sheave, and clog.
2 Alaska 517Murray v. Strong (1905)
This is a suit to recover from the defendant the amount of a foreign judgment rendered against him in the Territorial Court of the Yukon Territory, Dominion of Canada, on May 8, 1905, for the sum of $728.83. A copy of the proceedings in the Yukon court upon which the judgment is based is attached to the complaint.
2 Alaska 519Marks v. Gates (1905)
This is a suit in equity, seeking specific performance of the following contract: “This agreement, made and entered into this 27th day of April, 1903, by and between William C. Gates, of Seattle, state of Washington, the party of the first part, and Isaac L. Marks, of the city and county of San Francisco, state of California, the party of the second part, witnesseth: That the said William C. Gates, for and in consideration of one dollar (1) to him in hand paid, the receipt…
2 Alaska 532Charlton v. Kelly (1906)
This is an action in ejectment instituted by the plaintiffs to recover from the defendants the possession of a piece of mining property.
2 Alaska 552Boone v. Manley (1905)
This is a suit brought by the plaintiffs for a partition of four adjoining mining claims, Nos. 4 and 5 below discovery, creek claims, and the adjoining side or bench claims Nos. 4 and .5 on Cleary creek, in the Fairbanks mining district, territory of Alaska. The plaintiffs pray that partition be made by shares. The defendants answer, and also request a partition, but pray that it be made by a sale of the entire premises and a pro rata division of the proceeds.
2 Alaska 556Johanson v. Sondheim (1905)
1. Shipping — Carriage op Goods — Contracts—Breach. Plaintiff made an oral contract with defendants to ship his sawmill and laborers on the steamer Monarch from Eagle to Fairbanks. When the Monarch reached Eagle she was loaded, and refused to take them. Defendants telegraphed to the Oil City, another steamer, and she took them, but was delayed on the way. Plaintiff paid the Oil City the usual rates for both freight and passengers and defendants nothing. Held, that the contract with defendants for the services of the Monarch was abandoned, and that there was no consideration to support plaintiff’s claim for damages against defendants caused by the delay of the Oil City. [Ed. Note. — For cases in point, see vol. 44, Cent. Dig. Shipping, §§ 408, 410.] 2. New Trial — Refusal—Grounds—Insufficiency op Complaint-Pleadings. Even if the action of the court in directing a verdict for defendants was error, it would not justify the court in granting a new trial where the complaint did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, and no application to amend is made. [Ed. Note. — For cases in point, see vol.. 37, Cent. Dig. New Trial, § 320.]
2 Alaska 557Logan v. Columbia Canning Co. (1905)
1. Judgment — Modification—Vacation. After a' motion for a new trial was denied, the defendant filed a motion to vacate, set aside, or modify the judgment for error Held, the court had jurisdiction to consider the motion and vacate or modify the judgment. 2. Judges — Vacation of Judgment by New Judge. Motion for a new trial was denied and judgment entered. Thereafter the trial judge was succeeded on the bench by another judge. A motion was made before the new judge to vacate or modify the former judgment for error. Held, the successor had jurisdiction to vacate or modify the judgment. [Ed. Note. — For eases in point, see vol. 29, Gent. Dig. Judges, §§ 158-163.]
2 Alaska 560Peterson v. Drew (1905)
1. Master and Servant — Contract oe Employment — Breach by Master — Damages . Where a contract for labor for a fixed wage and period is broken by the discharge of the laborer, he cannot recover full wages if he fails to exercise reasonable diligence in seeking other employment, and thus reducing, or attempting to reduce, the damages or loss to himself resulting from the wrongful discharge. [Ed. Note. — For cases in point, see vol. 34, Cent. Dig. Master and Servant, § 54.] 2. Same — Discharge op Servant — Grounds. Where a contract of service or hiring is broken as the result of the servant’s own inefficiency, carelessness, neglect, and inattention to his duties under the contract, he cannot recover for the period after discharge, because he alone is responsible for the breach of the contract. [Ed. Note. — For cases in point, see vol. 34, Cent. Dig. Master and Servant, § 32.]
2 Alaska 564Seliner v. McKay (1905)
1. Juey — Right to Juey Trial — Quieting Title — Issues. In an action to quiet title, tbe defendant answered that plaintiff shortly before the commencement of the action ousted him from the rightful possession of the land in controversy, and wrongfully kept him out of the possession thereof. These allegations were put in issue by the reply. The defendant moved to have those issues tried by a jury. Held, on the authority of' Donahue v. Meister (Cal.) 25 Pac. 1096, that the issues of title, ouster, and damages thus raised by the pleadings should be referred to a jury for trial, under section 371, c. 39, Civil Code of Alaska, relating to trials of issues by jury in actions of an equitable nature. [Ed. Note. — Eor eases in point, see vol. 31, Cent. Dig. Jury, §§■ 45, 75.] 2. Same. In an action to quiet title, where the answer shows that defendant was rightfully in possession and was ousted by plaintiff, and was wrongfully kept out of possession, upon the trial of these issues the defendant is entitled to a jury trial. [Ed. Note. — For eases in point, see vol. 31, Cent. Dig. Jury, §§ 46, 75.]
2 Alaska 567Miocene Ditch Co. v. Jacobson (1905)
The plaintiff company is a corporation organized under the laws of California, and has qualified itself to do business in the District of Alaska by complying with all laws of the United States relating to foreign corporations doing business in the District of Alaska.
2 Alaska 575Montagne v. Labay (1905)
Mines and Minerals — Adverse Suits — Patents. Tbe ease of Lavagnino v. Ublig, 198 U. S. 443, 25 Sup. Ot. 716, 49 L. Ed. 1119, examined, and held, that it applies as authority only in adverse proceedings, when a patent to mining property has been applied for, and is binding on the courts only within its own limited circle of exceptional facts and circumstances. Compared with' Belli v. Meagher, 104 U. S. 279, 26 L. Ed. 735, and the rule in the latter held not to have been overruled thereby, and the rule in Belli v. Meagher followed. See, also, Dufresne v. The Northern Light Min. Co., 2 Alaska, 592, for further reasoning on same question by the same judge.
2 Alaska 577United States v. Larsen (1905)
Motion to dismiss appeal of defendant from judgment of the commissioner of Cape Nome precinct for insufficiency of notice. Motion granted.
2 Alaska 581Montgomery v. Waldeck (1905)
I This action was brought to recover the sum of $3,000, and interest thereon at 8 per cent, per annum from August 1, 1903, which the plaintiffs claim to be due them under an agreement in writing, dated September 23, 1902, purporting to be between W. S. Montgomery, George Bedford, Arthur Bedford, and Joseph Ross, the plaintiffs, and A. L. Waldeck, the defendant. The agreement is under seal, and bears the signatures of the plaintiffs, but was not signed by the defendant.
2 Alaska 587Elliott v. Kuzek (1905)
Motion to strike the answering plea of abatement. The grounds are: First, that said paragraphs together constitute a plea in abatement, and set forth an inconsistent defense with the plea to the merits previously therein pleaded; second, that the said paragraphs, as a whole, are sham, irrelevant, and frivolous. The first ground need only now be considered.
2 Alaska 592Dufresne v. Northern Light Mining Co. (1905)
This is an action of ejectment. A trial of the case resulted in a verdict for the defendants, and now the plaintiff moves for a new trial and that the verdict be set aside.
2 Alaska 600Ebner v. Heid (1905)
Plaintiffs commenced a suit against the defendant herein, alleging themselves in their complaint to be the owners of, in possession, and entitled to possession, of a certain mining right or interest in certain- lode mining claims, situate in the Harris mining district, District of Alaska, and that John G. Heid, defendant, claimed, or pretended to claim, an interest in such right; that said claim was adverse to the plaintiffs, and was false, fraudulent, and groundless,…
2 Alaska 607Jorgensen Co. v. Sheldon (1905)
1. Mechanics’ Liens — Law Liberally Construed. The courts in fixing at rule of construction of these laws look to tbe statutes themselves to ascertain whether they should be strictly or liberally interpreted. Held, that the provisions of the mechanic’s lien law of Alaska shall be liberally construed. [Ed. Note. — For cases in point, see vol. 34, Cent. Dig. Mechanics’ Liens, § 5.] 2. Same — Foreclosure—Complaint—Sufficiency. Where a complaint in foreclosure of a mechanic’s lien fails to allege and set out a substantial observance and compliance with the statute in the matter of the notice of lien, it is bad on demurrer. [Ed. Note. — For cases in point, see vol. 34, Cent. Dig. Mechanics’ Liens, § 508.]
2 Alaska 611Alaska Gold Mining Co. v. Ebner (1905)
1. Corporations — Laws op Oregon — Statutes. The organic act of 1884 extended the general laws of Oregon so far as applicable to Alaska. Held, that the laws providing for the incorporation of domestic corporations were applicable, and were so extended to Alaska. 2. Same — Repeal. The Civil Code of June 6, 1900, tit. 3, c. 36, § 368, provided: “All acts or parts of acts in conflict with the provisions of this act are hereby repealed.” Held, that the Oregon laws for the incorporation of domestic corporations in Alaska, not being in conflict, were not repealed, and remained in force.
2 Alaska 617Elwell v. Seattle Scandinavian Fish Co. (1905)
Demurrer to Complaint.
2 Alaska 621Pacific Coast Co. v. Brown (1905)
Motion to strike from answer all matter set forth as an affirmative defense in cross-complaint and demurrer to cross-complaint.
2 Alaska 624United States v. Doo-Noch-Keen (1905)
Demurrer to Indictment on Behalf of Doo-Noch-Keen.
2 Alaska 628United States v. Yakutat & S. Ry. Co. (1905)
Motion by the defendant, the Yakutat & Southern Railway Company, to quash and set aside the service of the bench warrant.
2 Alaska 633Krause v. Town of Juneau (1905)
Municipal Corporations — Damages—Personal Injuries. Plaintiff was injured by a defective sidewalk in the incorporated town of Juneau, and brought suit to recover damages for the failure of the town to keep the sidewalks in repair. Held, that the town had authority to keep the walks in repair, that it was its duty to do so, and that it was responsible in damages for injuries received by persons through its neglect and want of care. [Ed. Nóte. — For cases in point, see vol. 36, Cent. Dig. Municipal Corporations, § 1591.]