![]() On Augthe defendants, other than Surigao-Mainit Mining Syndicate, Surigao Consolidated Mining Co., Inc., and Otto Weber, filed an answer, which was amended on September 10, 1936, containing a general denial, setting up five special defenses and praying that the In this third amended complaint the placer claims alleged to be owned by the plaintiff were reduced to eleven, and the relief prayed for was about the same as thatĪsked in the original complaint, although the amount sought to be recovered as damages was increased to P49,000. Harris, Surigao-Mainit Mining Syndicate, Surigao Consolidated Mining Co., Inc.,Īnd Otto Weber, the original defendants, thirty-two other individuals were included as parties defendant. Pursuant to the order of the Court of First Instance of Surigao of June 5, 1936, the plaintiff filed, on June 11, 1936, a third amended complaint in which, additional to C. In the order of Januthe Court of First Instance of Surigao overruled the demurrer and required the defendants to file their answer within the On Januan amended complaint was filed to which another demurrer was interposed on January 22, 1936. Of First Instance of Surigao entered an order finding merit in the third ground of the demurrer and requiring the plaintiff to amend its complaint so as to contain a detailed description of its placer claims. That the complaint did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, because it merely alleged that the plaintiff was the owner by purchase of the placer claims named therein and (3) that the complaint was ambiguous and unintelligible. Harris, Surigao-Mainit Mining Syndicate, Surigao Consolidated Mining Co., Inc., and Otto Weber demurred to the complaint on the grounds (1) that there was a misjoinder of parties in that Otto Weber had been included as defendant (2) Located by the defendants on plaintiff's placer claims after the latter had been validly and duly staked and located by the plaintiff or its grantors and predecessors in interest. The theory of the plaintiff, under the complaint, is that it is the owner by purchase of the aforesaid placer claims and that the lode claims complained of were staked and Laborers from interfering with plaintiff's ownership and possession of its placer claims ( d) sentencing the defendants to pay jointly and severally to the plaintiff the sum of P47,000 by way of damages ( e) assessing the costs of the actionĪgainst the defendants and ( f) awarding the plaintiff such other proper, just and equitable relief. Surigao Consolidated Mining Co., Inc., and Otto Weber, and cancelling the registration of said lode claims in the records of the mining recorder of Surigao and in all other official records ( c) prohibiting the defendants and their agents, employees and ![]() The owner and possessor of the fourteen placer mining claims mentioned in the complaint and located in the barrio of Tubod, municipality of Mainit, Province of Surigao ( b) annulling the forty-three lode mining claims of the defendants, C. ![]() ![]() 3.On October 24, 1935, the original complaint in this case was filed in the Court of First Instance of Surigao in which the plaintiff, a domestic private corporation domiciled in Cebu, sought a judicial pronouncement ( a) adjudging the plaintiff to be Web.ġ918 'JAPANESE MINING SYNDICATE.', Western Argus (Kalgoorlie, WA : 1916 - 1938), 26 February, p. "JAPANESE MINING SYNDICATE." Western Argus (Kalgoorlie, WA : 1916 - 1938) 26 February 1918: 3. Western Argus (Kalgoorlie, WA : 1916 - 1938), p. Article identifier Page identifier APA citation
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |