Legal Opinion

Thomas v. Fursman

California Supreme Court

Decided February 18, 1918No. S. F. No. 7569PublishedCited by 16 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the Court

RICHARDS, J., pro tem.

This is an appeal from a judgment in favor of the defendant R. Waymire, and from an order denying the plaintiff’s motion for a new trial. The action was brought to recover for services rendered and for machines, materials, and supplies furnished by one M. A. Varney to the defendants in connection with the performance of certain annual assessment work upon certain placer mining claims at Searles Lake in San Bernardino County, said claims having each been located in the name of one or other of the several defendants herein". These several locations appear to have been made…

2Cited by16 opinions

  1. Miller v. JansenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1943
  2. Dinneen v. YoungerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1943
  3. Young v. the Young Holdings Corp., Ltd.California Court of Appeal · 1938
  4. People v. DanielsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1938
  5. Rowray v. Casper Mut. Building & Loan Ass'nWyoming Supreme Court · 1935

11 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