Legal Opinion

Cashman v. Russell

Arizona Supreme Court

Decided March 19, 1928No. Civil No. 2575PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtRoss, C. J.

— James Cashman performed certain services for the Signal Mines Company in connection with its mining operations, and this suit was brought by him to establish and foreclose a lien on the mines and mining claims for the reasonable value of such services.

The case was tried to the court without a jury and the plaintiff was given judgment for the amount of his claim, but denied a lien on the mining properties. The plaintiff has appealed and presents the question as to whether the judgment disallowing his lien was correct.

The record discloses that the mines are located in Owens mining district,…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Tube City Mining & Milling Co. v. OttersonArizona Supreme Court · 1914
  2. McClain v. HuttonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1900
  3. Hill v. Twin Falls Salmon River Land & Water Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1912
  4. Union Traction Co. v. Standard Brick Co.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1923
  5. Cleveland v. HightowerSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1925

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Caird Engineering Works v. Seven-Up Gold Mining Co., Inc.Montana Supreme Court · 1940
  2. Caird Engineering Works v. Seven-Up Gold Mining Co., Inc.Montana Supreme Court · 1940

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

Powered by the Exa API