Cook v. Klonos

Ninth Circuit

Cook v. Klonos

168 F. 700, 94 C.C.A. 144, 3 Alaska Fed. 318, 1909 U.S. App. LEXIS 4497

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMarch 2, 1909

DocketNo. 1,510

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 168 F. 700 (Cook v. Klonos) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cook v. Klonos, 168 F. 700, 94 C.C.A. 144, 3 Alaska Fed. 318, 1909 U.S. App. LEXIS 4497 (9th Cir. 1909).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The petition for rehearing is denied. We are satisfied with what is said in the opinion in respect to Barnette and the six absent locators; but a further examination of the record does not satisfy us that Cook and Ridenour were parties to the fraud. If they were not, and they joined in the location in question in good faith, and the ground was open to location, we think they are entitled to select 20 acres each within the exterior boundaries of, the associated claim, provided they have continued to conform to the requirements of the statute and the local rules of the mining district. We accordingly modify our judgment so as to read:

The judgment of the court below is affirmed as to the appellants A. T. Armstrong, W. H. Sumner, Y. L. Newton, M. E. Armstrong, L. T. Selkirk, and A. R. Armstrong, and as to the appellants Henry Cook and J. C. Ridenour it is reversed, and the case remanded, with leave to them [319]*319to file a supplemental bill, should they so elect, and in that event for further proceedings in accordance with the views here expressed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

The petition for rehearing is denied. We are satisfied with what is said in the opinion in respect to Barnette and the six absent locators; but a further examination of the record does not satisfy us that Cook and Ridenour were parties to the fraud. If they were not, and they joined in the location in question in good faith, and the ground was open to location, we think they are entitled to select 20 acres each within the exterior boundaries of, the associated claim, provided they have continued to conform to the requirements of the statute and the local rules of the mining district. We accordingly modify our judgment so as to read:

The judgment of the court below is affirmed as to the appellants A. T. Armstrong, W. H. Sumner, Y. L. Newton, M. E. Armstrong, L. T. Selkirk, and A. R. Armstrong, and as to the appellants Henry Cook and J. C. Ridenour it is reversed, and the case remanded, with leave to them [319]*319to file a supplemental bill, should they so elect, and in that event for further proceedings in accordance with the views here expressed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

168 F. 700, 94 C.C.A. 144, 3 Alaska Fed. 318, 1909 U.S. App. LEXIS 4497, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cook-v-klonos-ca9-1909.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack