Legal Opinion

Tibbetts v. Moore

California Supreme Court

Decided July 1, 1863PublishedCited by 33 opinions

Appeal from the Sixteenth Judicial District, Amador County. Moore, the mortgagor, purchased the steam engine spoken of in the opinion, of Lambard, its manufacturer, in Sacramento City. The other facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

1Opinion of the CourtCrocker, J.

This is an action to enforce a mechanic’s lien, notice of which was filed in the Eecorder’s office, November 24th, 1860, on a quartz mill owned by the defendant Moore, in Amador County, for machinery used in the construction of the mill. Morgan and Weatherwax came in under the published notice, and filed liens on the same property for lumber furnished and labor performed on the mill. Brown and Andrews were made parties, they claiming a lien thereon under a chattel mortgage, executed by Moore to one Mosick, and by Mosick assigned to them. This mortgage bears date October 22d, 1860, was…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Union Water Co. v. Murphy's Flat Fluming Co.California Supreme Court · 1863
  2. Hotaling v. CroniseCalifornia Supreme Court · 1852
  3. Ferguson v. MillerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1856

3Cited by33 opinions

  1. Stanislaus Water Co. v. BachmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1908
  2. Sword v. LowIllinois Supreme Court · 1887
  3. Hairgrove v. City of JacksonvilleIllinois Supreme Court · 1937
  4. Joyce v. TomasiniCalifornia Supreme Court · 1914
  5. Chamberlain v. City of LewistonIdaho Supreme Court · 1912

28 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API