Legal Opinion

Denman v. Smith

California Supreme Court

Decided December 26, 1939No. Sac. 5275PublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

THE COURT.

In accordance with the allegations of a complaint which was entitled “Action possessory and quiet title mining claims”, the plaintiffs sought judgment for the restitution to themselves of certain quartz mining claims of which they assertedly had been dispossessed by the defendants, to have the title thereto quieted in themselves, and for damages for the “value, use and occupancy” of the said premises by the defendants. Each of the defendants answered the said complaint, specifically denied in his answer each and all of the essential allegations of the complaint, set up a title and…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Hammer v. Garfield Mining & Milling Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1889
  2. Reay v. ButlerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
  3. Weed v. SnookCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
  4. McLean v. LadewigCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1934
  5. Schroder v. Aden Gold Mining Co.California Supreme Court · 1904

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

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. American Enterprise, Inc. v. Van WinkleCalifornia Supreme Court · 1952
  2. Tanner v. Title Insurance & Trust Co.California Supreme Court · 1942
  3. Salter v. UlrichCalifornia Supreme Court · 1943
  4. Newport v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1960
  5. Wagner v. WorrellCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1946

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