Thompson v. Spray
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Amador County, and from an order refusing a new trial. The action was brought to quiet title to a mining, claim. The further facts are stated in the opinion,.
1Opinion of the Court
Hayne, C.
The action is in relation to a placer mining claim in Amador County, and was brought by Alexander Thompson, Sen., and his five children mentioned below. At the trial a notice of location was introduced, in evidence, dated January 20,1882, and signed with the-names Alexander Thompson, James Thompson, Alexander Thompson, Jr., and Matilda Thompson. The-plaintiffs then offered what they styled an “ amended notice, which bore the same date, and contained a fuller-description of the property, and was signed with the-names Alexander Thompson, Matilda Thompson, Margaret Thompson, and Bedelía…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Hibberd v. SmithCalifornia Supreme Court · 1885
- Richmond Mining Co. v. RoseSupreme Court of the United States · 1885
- Golden Fleece G. & S. M. Co. v. Cable Consolidated G. & S. M. Co.Nevada Supreme Court · 1877
- Gore v. McBrayerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1861
- Morton v. Solambo Copper Mining Co.California Supreme Court · 1864
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by37 opinions
- Miller v. ChrismanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1903
- Cosmos Exploration Co. v. Gray Eagle Oil Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1901
- Nevada Sierra Oil Co. v. Home Oil Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern California · 1899
- Weed v. SnookCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
- Erwin v. PeregoCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1899
32 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.