Legal Opinion

Hartman Gold Mining Co. v. Warning

Arizona Supreme Court

Decided May 31, 1932No. Civil No. 3158PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtLockwood, J.

Frank Warning, Cyril Wig-more and C. O. Sanford, hereinafter called plaintiffs, brought suit against Hartman Gold Mining Company, a corporation, hereinafter called defendant, to quiet title to the Big Jim Extension Mining Claim in Mohave county. Defendant filed various motions and demurrers, answered, and then cross-complained, asking to quiet its title to the North Aztec mining-claim, covering the identical ground claimed as the Big Jim Extension in plaintiffs’ complaint.

The case was tried before the court without a jury, and judgment rendered in favor of plaintiffs, and, after the usual…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Belk v. MeagherSupreme Court of the United States · 1881
  2. Chambers v. HarringtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1884
  3. Lakin v. Sierra Buttes Gold Min. Co.United States Circuit Court · 1885
  4. Emerson v. McWhirterCalifornia Supreme Court · 1901
  5. Madison v. Octave Oil Co.California Supreme Court · 1908

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Public Service Co. of Oklahoma v. BleakArizona Supreme Court · 1982
  2. Lane v. HognasonCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1970
  3. Swansea Properties, Inc. v. HedrickCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1966
  4. Sakow v. J. E. Riley Inv. Co.District Court, D. Alaska · 1939
  5. Frazier v. Consolidated Tungsten Mines, Inc.Arizona Supreme Court · 1956

3 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