Talk:Irvine v. Dunham/Opinion of the Court
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
|
This page is part of a WikiProject to improve the United States Supreme Court case pages. To participate see the project page. |
| Information about this edition | |
|---|---|
| Edition: | Irvine v. Dunham, by Dunham, the appellee, against Irvine, the appellant It averred that on March 28, 1874, Irvine and one Richard H Sinton were the joint and equal owners of one undivided half of the Morgan mine, in Calaveras county, in the state of California; that the legal title to such undivided half was vested in Irvine, but was held by him in trust for himself and Sinton equally, share and share alike; that the undivided half of the mine has been acquired by Irvine and Sinton by their common efforts and their common expense, and pursuant to an agreement between them to acquire the title thereto, and sell and otherwise dispose of the same, and share equally the profits and losses The other undivided half of the mine was, so the bill alleged, held by Irvine in trust for certain other persons The bill further alleged that on the said March 28, 1874, Irvine executed to Sinton an instrument and declaration of trust in writing, of that date, of which the following is a copy: . |
| Source: | Irvine v. Dunham from http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/US/111 |
| Contributor(s): | BenchBot |
| Level of progress: | Text being edited 
|
| Notes: | Gathered and wikified using an automated tool. See this documentation for more information. |