Minner v. Sadler
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the CourtGriffin, J.
This is an action in ejectment and to recover possession of a certain mining claim, to quiet title thereto, and for damages (1) for loss of use of the area con*592tained therein; (2) for mineral wrongfully removed" therefrom; and (3) for trespassing upon the property. The complaint alleges generally that plaintiffs are and have been, since October 2, 1940, the sole owners of and entitled to the exclusive possession of the Daisy No. 1 unpatented lode mining claim situated in Fresno County; that the defendants claim an unfounded interest in the area contained therein adverse to plaintiffs; that on…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Belk v. MeagherSupreme Court of the United States · 1881
- Lightner Mining Co. v. LaneCalifornia Supreme Court · 1911
- Roth v. MoellerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1921
- Corey v. StruveCalifornia Supreme Court · 1915
- Lind v. BakerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1939
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- People v. OlsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1965
- White v. Ames Mining CompanyIdaho Supreme Court · 1960
- Mandel v. Great Lakes Oil Etc. Co.California Court of Appeal · 1957
- People v. OlsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1965