Legal Opinion

Waskey v. McNaught

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided July 6, 1908No. 1,517PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMorrow, Circuit Judge

(after stating the facts as above).

The plaintiffs brought this suit in ejectment to recover the possession of a portion of a mining claim which the defendants had entered and ousted the plaintiffs. The value of the ground' in controversy consists in the gold-bearing earth, sand, and gravel contained therein. The defendants admit they are severing and extracting this gold-bearing material and depositing it in a dump on the premises. The extraction and removal of this gold-bearing material from the ground will necessarily destroy its value and render ineffectual any judgment that may be…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Erhardt v. BoaroSupreme Court of the United States · 1885
  2. Erhardt v. BoaroSupreme Court of the United States · 1885
  3. Curtis v. SutterCalifornia Supreme Court · 1860
  4. Natoma Water & Mining Co. v. ClarkinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1860
  5. Hicks v. MichaelCalifornia Supreme Court · 1860

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Smith v. El Paso Gold Mines, Inc.Colorado Court of Appeals · 1985
  2. Mitchell v. Beaver Dredging Co.District Court, D. Alaska · 1935

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API