Harbin v. Burghart
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tehama County, and from an order refusing a new trial. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtPaterson, J.
This is an action brought to determine which of the parties has the right to purchase a portion of section 36, township 28 north, range 2 east, Mount Diablo meridian, school lands. All the defendants except Gold have been dismissed from the action.
Gold’s application to purchase was filed in the office of the surveyor-general, January 23, 1884, and is in proper form. Plaintiff filed his application to purchase in the same office on the 21st of March, 1884, and on the following day filed with the surveyor-general a protest against the approval of Gold’s application. Thereupon the…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- McKenzie v. BrandonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886
- Mosely v. TorrenceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886
- Plummer v. WoodruffCalifornia Supreme Court · 1887
- Gavitt v. MohrCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886
3Cited by8 opinions
- Taylor v. WestonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
- Davidson v. Cucamonga Fruit & Land Co.California Supreme Court · 1888
- Jacobs v. WalkerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
- Wrinkle v. WrightCalifornia Supreme Court · 1902
- Kleinsorge v. BurgbacherCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1907
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.