Stinson v. Hardy
Decision Date | 20 July 1895 |
Citation | 27 Or. 584,41 P. 116 |
Parties | STINSON v. HARDY et al. |
Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
Appeal from circuit court, Baker county; Morton D. Clifford, Judge.
Action by William Stinson against O.B. Hardy and others to foreclose miners' liens. From a judgment for defendants, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
William Smith, for appellant.
M.L Olmsted, for respondents.
This is a suit to foreclose three several miners' liens claimed for work and labor done and performed at the instance of the defendant O.B. Hardy, who was operating certain mining properties under the following agreement with the owners thereof, viz.:
The liens are claimed under section 1 of an act entitled "An act for securing liens for laborers on mining claims and material men, and prescribing the manner of their enforcement," approved February 20, 1891, which provides, in effect, that every person who shall do work or furnish materials for the working or development of any mine, lode, mining claim, or deposit yielding metals or minerals of any kind, or for the working or development thereof, and all persons who shall do work or furnish material upon any shaft, tunnel, incline, adit, drift, or other excavation designed or used for the purpose of draining or working any such mine, lode, or deposit, shall have a lien upon the same, which lien shall attach to the mine, lode, etc.: "provided that this section shall not be deemed to apply to the owner or owners of any mine, lode, deposit, shaft, tunnel, incline, adit, drift, or other excavations when the same shall be worked by a lessee or lessees."
The vital question for our determination is...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Sproul v. Gilbert
...is recognized where land is leased solely for mining purposes. Malcomson v. Wappoo Mills, C.C.S.C.1898, 85 F. 907; Stinson v. Hardy, 1895, 27 Or. 584, 41 P. 116; Northern Light Mining Co. v. Blue Goose Mining Co., 1914, 25 Cal.App. 282, 143 P. 540; Consolidated Coal Co. v. Peers et al., 189......
-
Blue River Sawmills, Limited v. Gates
...Barbey, 1934, 145 Or. 427, 441, 26 P.2d 46; Christensen v. Pacific Coast Borax Co., 1894, 26 Or. 302, 304, 38 P. 127; Stinson v. Hardy, 1895, 27 Or. 584, 589, 41 P. 116; Schiffman v. Hickey, 1921, 101 Or. 596, 601, 200 P. 1035; Klein v. City of Portland, 1923, 106 Or. 686, 693, 213 P. 147. ......
-
State v. Rawson
...land by the lessee, and a recompense of rent or increase to the lessor, and is a grant of an estate in the land; * * *." Stinson v. Hardy, 27 Or. 584, 41 P. 116, 118. Defendants of course rely upon Sections 1 and 2 of Oregon Laws 1941, Chapter 262, set forth supra, which became O.C.L.A. (S)......
-
Weathers v. M.C. Lininger & Sons, Inc.
...is more properly regarded as a profit a prendre * * *." 226 Or. at 412, 359 P.2d 543. (Citations omitted.) 3 See also Stinson v. Hardy, 27 Or. 584, 41 P. 116 (1895). On the basis of the foregoing, it is our conclusion that defendants acquired a possessory interest (as opposed to a license) ......