Sly v. Palo Alto Gold Min. Co.

• Decision Date: 02 May 1902
• Citation: 28 Wash. 485,68 P. 871
• Parties: SLY et al. v. PALO ALTO GOLD MIN. CO. et al.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

68 P. 871

28 Wash. 485

SLY et al. v. PALO ALTO GOLD MIN. CO. et al.

Supreme Court of Washington

May 2, 1902

Appeal from superior court, Ferry county; C. H. Neal, Judge.

Suit by Lester Sly and others against the Palo Alto Gold Mining Company and R. Insinger. From a decree for plaintiffs defendant Insinger appeals. Affirmed.

A. E Gallagher, for appellant.

J. P. De Mattos and Jesseph & Jesseph, for respondents.

REAVIS C.J.

Suit to foreclose several mechanics' liens by L. Sly & Co. composed of Lester Sly and Charles Herrman, and Behne Nichols, and Meyers, plaintiffs, against Palo Alto Gold Mining Company, a corporation, and Insinger, defendants. The complaint alleged four causes of action. The first, in substance, was the partnership of L. Sly & Co., and that in December, 1900, said plaintiffs furnished materials which were used in the construction, alteration, and repair and development and improvement of the Palo Alto lode mining claim in Ferry county, and stating the value of the materials, and that the sum was due and unpaid, and that a claim of lien had been duly filed for the same; that the Palo Alto lode mining claim is contiguous to and adjoining the November Fraction lode mining claim, which claims were held and operated as a group by the defendant company, and the materials so furnished were for the development of said lodes which were held by defendant company as constituting one mine; that the defendant Insinger has, or claims to have, a mortgage on the said mining claims, and that said mortgage is junior and inferior to the lien of plaintiffs. The second cause of action alleges that plaintiff Behne performed labor for the defendant, and states the terms of the contract and the amount due and unpaid, and that a claim of lien had been duly filed and recorded, and refers to, repeats, adopts, and makes a part of this cause of action paragraphs 3, 4, and 5 of the first cause of action, except that plaintiff Behne's claim is for labor, instead of for material, as set forth in the fourth paragraph of the first cause of action. And the substance of the allegations of the third and fourth causes of action are the same as the second. Defendants appeared, and filed general demurrers to each cause of action. Thereafter the demurrers were overruled, and defendants announced they would not further plead, and their default was entered for want of answer, and findings of fact and conclusions of...