DELMONIOb b. BOUDBBUSH. 165 �statute is sîmilar to our own, if not exactly the garûe, and ît was held upôn full consideration that the statute was oï no
- orce or effect in the federal courts.
�The demurrer to the bill wîU be overruled. ���Delmonioo V. EouDEBTJSH and others. ICireuit Court, J), Colorado. December 16, 1880.) �1. CoNTHACT— Conteubion.— The part owner of a contract for the pnr- �chase of a mine cannot use the same for the purpose of obtaining tho title to the mine for a third party, without the consent of his associ- ates. �2. Same— Samb. — In such case an associate is entitled to share, in propor- �tion to his inteiest in the contract, in the property obtained by such part owner for his individuai beneflt tlirough the use of such contract. �3. Bame — Same. — Such claim by the associate will not be defeated by the �fact that the property obtained by such part owner was not whollyin return for the use of such contract. �4 Same — Same. — A. and B. were part owners of a contract for the purchass of a claim to a mine. A. used such contract for the purpose of pro- curing such claim for C. without the consent of B., and also secured another outstanding title for the beneflt of 0. In return for these services, C. gave A. an interest in the mine. Eeld, that B. was enti- tled to an interest in A. 's share of the mine proportionate to B.'s interest in the original contract. — (Ed �In Equity. �M. B. Carpenter a,nd. Elihu Root, for plaintiff. �J. Y. Marshall, for defendants. �Hallbtt, D. j. In the month of May, 1879, Irving How- bert and others were in possession of the Eobert E. Lee mine, near Leadville, and engaged in working it. These persons resided at Colorado Springs, in this state, and from that cir- cumstance, and to distinguish them from other claimants of the same property, they are called in the pleadings the Col- orado Springs party. Other persons claiming adversely to the Colorado Springs party resided in Denver, and they are called in the pleadings the Denver party. Harmon P. Lee ����
