Holmes v. Salamanca Gold Mining & Milling Co.
California Court of Appeal
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtAllen, P. J.
Action to recover possession of certain unpatented mining claims. Defendants had judgment. Plaintiffs in due time appealed, upon a statement, from the order denying a new trial.
The only questions presented upon this appeal relate to the action of the trial court in admitting certain testimony and as to the sufficiency of the evidence to support certain material findings. The complaint is in the usual form, alleging plaintiffs’ ownership, possession and right of possession on December 30, 1903, of three unpatented lode mining claims, designated as the “Bonanza,” “Blossom” and “Lucinda,” and of…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Carpy v. DowdellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1897
- Marshall v. ShafterCalifornia Supreme Court · 1867
- Mather v. HutchinsonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1869
- Horswell v. RuizCalifornia Supreme Court · 1885
- Goldberg v. BruschiCalifornia Supreme Court · 1905
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Gioscio v. LautenschlagerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1937