Bewick v. Muir
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Placer County. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtSharpstein, J.
This was an action to foreclose a number of liens upon a mine for labor and materials, under the act of 1880. There were forty-five plaintiffs, each claiming a separate lien. Judgment was given for the plaintiffs, and two of the defendants appealed.
1. The summons is sufficient. It states the nature of the action in general terms, and this is all the statute. requires. It is apparent from the statements of the summons that the action in which it was issued was to recover money and to foreclose liens. This is the general nature of the action. It is unnecessary to state whether the right to the…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Williams v. Santa Clara Mining Ass'n of Balt.California Supreme Court · 1884
- Malone v. Big Flat Gravel Mining Co.California Supreme Court · 1888
- Silvester v. Coe Quartz Mine Co.California Supreme Court · 1889
3Cited by21 opinions
- Ryan v. HollidayCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895
- Higley v. PollockNevada Supreme Court · 1891
- Berentz v. Belmont Oil Mining Co.California Supreme Court · 1906
- People v. DodgeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
- Clark v. PalmerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.