Legal Opinion
Ehrhart v. Bowling
California Court of Appeal
Decided January 10, 1940No. Civ. 6233PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
DEIRUP, J., pro tem.
Plaintiff located the New Ford Quartz Mine on July 25, 1928, and on January 28, 1931, he extended the claim in an easterly direction by locating the East Extension of the New Ford Quartz Mine. On March 19, 1938, defendants located the Oregon Fraction Claim and proceeded to sink a shaft and take out gold therefrom. Plaintiff brought this suit in unlawful detainer. A jury rendered a verdict in favor of plaintiff for the possession of the land and for damages in the sum of $1136, this being the amount of gold admittedly extracted by defendants without deduction for the cost…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Lightner Mining Co. v. LaneCalifornia Supreme Court · 1911
- Starr v. Los Angeles Railway Corp.California Supreme Court · 1921
- Pittam v. City of RiversideCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1932
- Union Oil Co. v. Reconstruction Oil Co.California Court of Appeal · 1937
- Pittsburgh & West Virginia Gas Co. v. Pentress Gas Co.West Virginia Supreme Court · 1919
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Daly v. SmithCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1963
- Crofoot Lumber, Inc. v. FordCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1961
- MacDonald v. Midland Mining Co.California Court of Appeal · 1956
- Pepperdine v. KeysCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1961
- Whittaker v. OttoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1967
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.