Maye (P) and Tappan (D) owned adjoining mining claims. Neither willfully nor intentionally, but in ignorance of the dividing line, D worked a part of the mining land owned by P. P objected to all evidence showing that D was ignorant. The Court overruled the objection and allowed several Ds to testify to those facts. The jury found for P. P received damages of $50, but was not entitled to vindictive or exemplary damages. P appealed, claiming that he was due more damages and from an order refusing a new trial.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.