Legal Opinion

Gibson v. McReynolds

California Supreme Court

Decided June 4, 1917No. L. A. No. 3809PublishedCited by 4 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtMelvin, J.

Defendants appeal from the judgment and from an order denying their motion for a new trial.

By his pleading G. R. Gibson alleged that he and the defendants had entered into “a special agreement whereby the plaintiff was to have a certain interest equivalent to that of defendants in certain placer mining claims to be located-upon unappropriated government land, under the laws of the United States in the county of Kern”; that thereafter, in pursuance of the agreement, defendants and their wives with J. A. Stroud, G. W. Derby, and their wives and the plaintiff made mineral locations upon certain…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Herd v. TuohyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1901
  2. Cheda v. BodkinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1916
  3. Herman v. HechtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1897
  4. Gordon v. CadwaladerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1916
  5. Lyles v. PerrinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1901

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Dougherty v. California Kettleman Oil Royalties, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1937
  2. Pneucrete Corp. v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.California Court of Appeal · 1935
  3. General Petroleum Corp. of California v. DoughertyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1941
  4. Serv-U-Garbage Co. v. Board of HealthCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1930

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

Powered by the Exa API