Legal Opinion

Gilpin County Mining Co. v. Drake

Supreme Court of Colorado

Decided December 15, 1885PublishedCited by 7 opinions

Error to District Court of Cilpin County. The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the CourtBeck, C. J.

The first assignment of error discussed in the briefs of counsel is, “ That the court erred in permitting parol evidence of the contents of the alleged agreement, signed by the plaintiff, to go to the jury under the notice given to produce the same in open court upon the trial of said action.”

The complaint, as amended, alleges the sale by the plaintiff below of a certain mining claim, on the 15th day of April, 1879, to the Gilpin County Mining Company, defendant, and the execution of a written agreement in duplicate, setting out the terms and conditions of the contract; that one copy thereof…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Blatchley v. ColesSupreme Court of Colorado · 1881
  2. Stanbury v. KerrSupreme Court of Colorado · 1881
  3. Bagley v. EatonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1855

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Hunt v. HaytSupreme Court of Colorado · 1887
  2. Henderson v. JohnsSupreme Court of Colorado · 1889
  3. Gaubatz v. Marquette Minerals, Inc.Colorado Court of Appeals · 1984
  4. Londonderry Mining Co. v. United Gold Mines Co.Supreme Court of Colorado · 1906
  5. Brown v. LevanIdaho Supreme Court · 1896

2 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