Bingham v Shumate
Bingham et al v Shumate et al, [1911] 17 BCR 359
Bingham et al appeal the judgement of Justice Morrison regarding the ownership of
22 timber claims in the Copper River area. Shumate acquired 7 of the claims from McCulloch
and Dockerell, and caused the remaining 15 to be staked. The plaintiffs joined a syndicate
to handle those properties. Shumate was empowered to sell the limits, and the action
was brought for a declaration as to the interests of the plaintiffs in those limits,
demanding an accounting of the defendant’s handling of those stakes properties and
the appointment of a receiver to attend to the interests of all parties. Shumate presented
a counterclaim that would force the plaintiffs to produce the documents necessary
to permit a pending sale of those limits. Justice Morrison concluded that the plaintiffs
had failed to prove the accusation of fraud they had leveled at the defendant. He
dismissed the action and granted Shumate’s counterclaim, with costs. The plaintiffs
were represented by Maclean, the defendant by Bodwell and Mayers. Chief Justice Macdonald
and Justices Irving and Galliher heard and dismissed the appeal., with Elliott, Maclean,
and Shandley standing for the appellants and C.K. Courtenay for the respondents.
Plaintiffs | |
Defendants | |
Appellants | |
Respondents | |
Judges |
Metadata
Download Original XML (8.0K)
Download Standalone XML (12K)
Title
Bingham v Shumate
Credits
Researcher: Monique F. Ulysses
Researcher: Lauren Chalaturnyk
Metadata author: Connell Parish
Metadata author: Gordon Lyall
Publication Information: See Terms of Use for publication and licensing information.
Source:
British Columbia Supreme Court; British Columbia Court of Appeal.
British Columbia Reports.
1911.
Terminology
Readers of these historical materials will encounter derogatory references to Japanese
Canadians and euphemisms used to obscure the intent and impacts of the internment
and dispossession. While these are important realities of the history, the Landscapes
of Injustice Research Collective urges users to carefully consider their own terminological
choices in writing and speaking about this topic today as we confront past injustice.
See our statement on terminology, and related sources here.