68e FEDBBAIi BEPOBTBB. �PiEST Nat. Bank ». Bibsell, Foss & Hunteb. (Circuit Court, B. Colorado. June 26, 1880.) �1. CoNTKACTS— Agkeement to Negotiatb fob Pbopebty. — An agree- �ment between two or more persona to negotiate for the purchase of specifie property, does not vest any right in either, unless such agree- ment is consummated by a purchase of the property. �2. Same — Agent — Trustes.— An agent for the purchase of property can- �not be declared a trustee for his principal, when he repudiates the agency, and purchases the property with his own funds. Burden v. Sheridan, 36 lowa, 125. �3. Tenants in Commun — Pdmchase bt Co-Tenant. — A purchase by one �contenant of the interest of another does not enure to the beneflt of ail the remaining tenants in common. �4. Mining Pabtnership — Ketibing Partner.— In amining partnership �the flrm has no right of pre-emption as to the Interests of retiring partners in the mines. �C. Purchase dp Mining Interests— Contract— Co-Tenant— Partner. Therefore, a tenant in common of mining property, and a partner in the working of the mine, cannot claim any benefit in the clandes- tine purchase of the interests of certain co-tenants and retiring part- ners by two of his co-tenants and partners, although he had previously agreed with one ol the purchasers to negotiate for the purchase of such interests for their joint benefit, and was then willing to pay his share of the purchase money. �In Equity. �L. C. Rockwell, for plaintiff. �W. S. Decker and D. P. Dyer, for defendants. �Hallett, D. J. In the month of September, 1878, Charles E. BiBsell, Simon H. Foss, and Absalom V. Hunter owned in equal parts three-fourths of the Winnemuc mine, and three- fourths of seven-sixteenths of the New Discovery mine, near Leadville, in this state. The remaining one-fourth interest in the same property was owned by Edward Handley, George W. Eobertson, and Amos B. Eawlings, and ail were engaged in working the mines, which were very productive. In their relations to each other as owners of the property the parties named were tenants in common; and in respect to their operations in working and mining on the property they were mining partners. As to their partnership relation, nothing more is shown than the fact that they were working the ����
