Legal Opinion

Potter v. Randolph

California Supreme Court

Decided October 26, 1899No. Sac. No. 549PublishedCited by 9 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the Court

THE COURT.

—The action was to quiet title to land, and the appeal is from, the judgment and from an order refusing a new trial.

Plaintiff claims title derived from the United States under a commuted homestead entry, and a duplicate receipt for a patent dated prior to the commencement of the action.

The answers set up claims to portions of the land under mining locations and aver a contest with plaintiff, still pending in the United States land department, and contend that, therefore, the superior court bad no jurisdiction to render judgment “until said cause in said land department of the United…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Astiazaran v. Santa Rita Land & Mining Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1893
  2. Pinkerton v. LedouxSupreme Court of the United States · 1889

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Lightner Mining Co. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1910
  2. Duguid v. BestCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1961
  3. Crowder v. LyleCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1964
  4. Bowen v. Chemi-Cote Perlite CorporationCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1967
  5. Wetsel v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1953

4 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