Frankel v. Deidesheimer
Frankel v. Deidesheimer
Opinion of the Court
We are of opinion that the evidence is insufficient to justify the findings of fact in the court below in the following particulars, viz.: That the location of the Willow quartz lode was made at the request or for the use or benefit of the defendant, Philipp Deidesheimer; that Deides
The evidence that the deed from Deidesheimer to Busch was executed on or within a day or two of October 15, 1883, is clear and unequivocal, and there is no evidence substantially in conflict therewith; the argument to the contrary is based upon presumptions arising out of presumptions. There is no evidence that at the time of the conveyance the property conveyed had a market value in excess of the amount paid by Busch. The evidence shows that, at the time of the location of the Young America claim, Deidesheimer’s name was inserted in the notice of location by Busch as an act of friendship; and that as soon as Deidesheimer made an examination of the ground he declared his intention not to abide by the location, and offered to and did execute to Busch a deed of the property; and that not until some months after the delivery of the deed did the claim have any apparent or market value. We find no evidence of any fraud on the part of either of the
Judgment and order reversed and cause remanded for a new trial.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- FRANKEL v. DEIDESHEIMER
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- Deed—Consideration—Presumptions.—Where the Evidence was Clear and unequivocal that a deed was made on or within a day or two of October 15, 1883, and there was no evidence to show that the property conveyed had at the time a market value in excess of the amount paid, and there was no evidence of fraud, held, that a finding of fact to the contrary, based upon presumptions, could not be sustained.