Legal Opinion

Buchner v. Malloy

California Supreme Court

Decided February 26, 1909No. Sac. No. 1590PublishedCited by 15 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtSloss, J.

The plaintiff commenced this action against the four defendants above named to quiet her title to an un divided six twenty-secondths of six mining claims in Siskiyou County. The complaint contained merely the usual allegations that plaintiff was the owner and entitled to the possession of the property, and that defendants, without right, claimed adversely to her. The defendants McDowell, Hendersee, and Fleming, disclaimed any interest except such as was held by McDowell under a contract of purchase made by him with Malloy. At the trial the court, on motion of plaintiff, ordered a dismissal as…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Belk v. MeagherSupreme Court of the United States · 1881
  2. Forbes v. GraceySupreme Court of the United States · 1877
  3. Gwillim v. DonnellanSupreme Court of the United States · 1885
  4. Merritt & Bourne v. Judd & ByrneCalifornia Supreme Court · 1859
  5. McDonald v. McCoyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898

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

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. J. Bryant Kasey and Maryann Kasey v. Molybdenum Corporation of America, a CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1964
  2. Burns v. RossCalifornia Supreme Court · 1923
  3. Gray v. WalkerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1910
  4. G. R. Holcomb Estate Co. v. BurkeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1935
  5. Watterson v. CruseCalifornia Supreme Court · 1918

10 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