My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2018-02-22_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - M1999042
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
General Documents
>
Minerals
>
M1999042
>
2018-02-22_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - M1999042
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/17/2021 3:52:32 AM
Creation date
3/6/2018 12:15:48 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1999042
IBM Index Class Name
GENERAL DOCUMENTS
Doc Date
2/22/2018
From
District Court of Pitkin County, CO
To
DRMS
Email Name
SJM
Media Type
D
Archive
No
Tags
DRMS Re-OCR
Description:
Signifies Re-OCR Process Performed
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
32
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
the Maree Love Lode claim is senior to the Ground Hog and Double Decker claims of <br /> Davie Otis and quiets title to the Maree Love Lode claim in Mr. Congdon, as agent for <br /> Tom Congdon. <br /> In April of 1996, Mr. Skinner performed discovery work and staked the Top Deck, <br /> Bottom Deck, West Deck and East Deck claims. He filed valid location certificates on <br /> these claims on June 24, 1996. The Court finds that the Top Deck, Bottom Deck, West <br /> Deck and East Deck claims are senior to all other claims. <br /> III. THE PLACER CLAIMS <br /> Snowmass Mining was the only party to locate placer claims at the White Banks <br /> Claims and the Southern Claim locations. Minex properly located the placer claims. To <br /> the extent that there are placer deposits on the White Banks Claims and the Southern <br /> Claims, they are vested with Snowmass Mining. <br /> IV. DEFENDANTS COUNTERCLAIMS AND CROSS CLAIMS <br /> INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACT <br /> Defendants have brought a claim for intentional interference with contract in its <br /> Fourth Claim for Relief. In order to prevail on this claim, Defendants must prove that: <br /> 1. He had a contract with a third person; <br /> 2. Ms. Skinner and Snowmass Mining knew or reasonably should have <br /> known of the contract; <br /> 3. Ms. Skinner and Snowmass Mining by words or conduct, or both, <br /> intentionally caused the third party not to perform, or terminate the <br /> contract with Mr. Congdon or interfered with the third party's <br /> performance of the contract; <br /> 4. Ms. Skinner and Snowmass Mining's interference with the contract was <br /> improper; and <br /> 23 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.