Legal Opinion

Rowland v. Columbia Mining, Water and Power Co.

California Court of Appeal

Decided November 26, 1934No. Civ. 5047PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtPlummer, J.

The plaintiffs had judgment against the defendant for and on account of alleged fraudulent representations concerning certain mining property situate in the county of Tuolumne. From this judgment the defendant appeals.

The complaint alleges that the defendant at the time of the commencement of the action was and • for many years previously had been the owner of certain mining property consisting of the river bed of the south fork of the Stanislaus River just above the forks of said river with the north fork, and commencing at a point on the bed of the south fork of the river immediately…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Akley v. BassettCalifornia Supreme Court · 1922
  2. French v. FreemanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1923
  3. Teague v. HallCalifornia Supreme Court · 1916
  4. Stone v. McCartyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1923
  5. Latta v. Da RozaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1929

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Sutter v. General Petroleum Corp.California Supreme Court · 1946
  2. J. C. Millett Co. v. Park & Tilford Distillers Corp.District Court, N.D. California · 1954
  3. Lawson v. Town & Country Shops, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1958
  4. Traylor v. Los Angeles Mountain Park Co.California Court of Appeal · 1937

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

Powered by the Exa API