Musser v. Fitting
California Court of Appeal
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Inyo County and from an order denying a new trial. William D. Dehy, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. P. W. Forbes, and Boyd & Salisbury, for Appellants.
1Opinion of the CourtShaw, J.
Action to quiet title to a mining claim of which plalritlfP claimed ownership and right to possession.
Judgment went for plaintiff, from which, and an order denying his motion for a new trial, defendant Salisbury appeals.
In January, 1910, plaintiff duly located a lode mining claim which he designated as the Lead Hill Lode Mining Claim, the exterior boundary lines of which conflicted with and overlapped certain claims known as the Monster No. 4 Mining Claim and Monster No. 5 Mining Claim, ownership of which was claimed by appellants. This conflict, as between the Lead Hill Lode Mining Claim and…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Reinhart v. LugoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
- Sacramento Bank v. MontgomeryCalifornia Supreme Court · 1905
- Harris v. SargeantOregon Supreme Court · 1900
- Wailes v. DaviesU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Nevada · 1907
- Goldberg v. BruschiCalifornia Supreme Court · 1905
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Kaufmann v. California Mining & Dredging SyndicateCalifornia Supreme Court · 1940
- City of Salinas v. Luke Kow LeeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1933
- Brown v. MurphyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1939
- B & B Sulphur Co. v. KelleyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1943
- Crane v. FrenchCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1940
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.