Legal Opinion

Thornton v. Kaufman

Montana Supreme Court

Decided February 14, 1907No. 2,345PublishedCited by 14 opinions

Appeal from District Court, Silver Bow County; George M. Bourquin, Judge. Action by W. D. Thornton and others against Louis Kaufman. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant appeals.

1Opinion of the CourtChief Justice Brantly

This action was brought to determine an adverse claim in patent proceedings under section 2326 of the Revised Statutes of the United States (U. S. Comp. Stats. 1901, p. 1430); the plaintiffs claiming under a lode location named the “Vigilant,” and the defendant under a lode location named the “Little Spring.” The district court found for the plaintiffs. The defendant has appealed from the judgment. He relies upon several alleged errors, the principal one of which is that the complaint does not state facts to constitute a cause of action, in that it is not alleged therein that the adverse…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Webb v. BidwellSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1870
  2. McKay v. McDougalMontana Supreme Court · 1897
  3. Mattingly v. LewisohnMontana Supreme Court · 1888
  4. Murray v. PolglaseMontana Supreme Court · 1899
  5. Holliday v. Franklin BankOhio Supreme Court · 1847

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

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. Buhler v. LoftusMontana Supreme Court · 1917
  2. Waite v. Shoemaker & Co.Montana Supreme Court · 1915
  3. Crenshaw v. CrenshawMontana Supreme Court · 1947
  4. Doornbos v. ThomasMontana Supreme Court · 1915
  5. Badovinac v. Northern Pacific Railway Co.Montana Supreme Court · 1909

9 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