Legal Opinion
Batt v. Stedman
California Court of Appeal
Decided March 29, 1918No. Civ. No. 1793PublishedCited by 4 opinions
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtHart, J.
As respondent states that appellant, in his brief, has substantially stated the case, we adopt appellant’s statement, as follows:
“This is an action to quiet title, pursuant to section 2326, Revised Statutes of the United States, [Fed. Stats. Ann., 2d ed., p. 563; U. S. Comp. Stats. 1916, sec. 4623], brought upon adverse claims of respondent on the Samson lode and Annex placer locations to appellant’s application for United States patent on the Mammoth lode claim. After trial, without a jury, the court rendered judgment in favor of respondent, awarding to him certain areas in conflict with…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Garibaldi v. GrilloCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1911
- Horswell v. RuizCalifornia Supreme Court · 1885
- Butte Northern Copper Co. v. RadmilovichMontana Supreme Court · 1909
- Doherty v. California Navigation & Improvement Co.California Court of Appeal · 1907
- Doe v. SangerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Brown v. LuddyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1932
- Thornton v. StevensonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1960
- Thornton v. StevensonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1960
- Sydney v. RichardsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1919