• 0,99 €

Descrizione dell’editore

Plaintiffs brought this action to quiet title to certain mining claims and to have the court declare void or unenforceable a mining agreement with defendants who had been operators of plaintiffs' gold mill and mining property. Damages were also sought for improper maintenance of the mill. The operators counterclaimed, seeking to specifically enforce the agreement and to collect damages for wrongful eviction from the property before the end of the contract period. After a trial, the Judge ruled the contract valid but no longer in effect. The owners were awarded $7,000 damages for the operators' improper maintenance of the mill and the operators were awarded $400 damages caused by their wrongful eviction. The Judge ruled that the owners were the prevailing party and awarded them costs. The operators appeal from the judgment. We affirm. The issues on appeal concern whether the district court correctly construed a renewability clause in the mining agreement; whether the court erred by denying the operators the remedy of specific enforcement; whether the damages awarded to the owners for repairs they made to the mill after repossession had been adequately pled and proven; whether punitive damages should have been awarded to the operators by reason of a wrongful eviction; and whether the owners were entitled to costs as prevailing parties.

GENERE
Professionali e tecnici
PUBBLICATO
1985
29 agosto
LINGUA
EN
Inglese
PAGINE
11
EDITORE
LawApp Publishers
DIMENSIONE
66.9
KB