Fernandez v. Burleson
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Siskiyou County and from an order denying a new trial. J. S. Beard, Judge The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
Britt, C.
Plaintiffs, eight in number, united in this action under the permissive clause of section 1195 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to enforce liens claimed by them, respectively, for balances due from defendants •on account of labor performed by plaintiffs, severally, at the request of defendants, on a mining claim in Siskiyou county. Defendants constitute a mining partnership under the name of Burleson & Parsley; they owned a mining claim called the “ Bare Bar ” claim, and employed plaintiffs to work thereon; their answer admitted that the balances alleged are due to the plaintiffs,…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Willamette Steam Mills Co. v. KremerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
- Wagner v. HansenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
- Goss v. StrelitzCalifornia Supreme Court · 1880
3Cited by10 opinions
- Caird Engineering Works v. Seven-Up Gold Mining Co., Inc.Montana Supreme Court · 1940
- Waniorek v. United RailroadsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1911
- Hayward Lumber & Investment Co. v. FordCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1944
- D. I. Nofziger Lumber Co. v. WatersCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1909
- Bishop v. Hayward Lumber & Investment Co.California Court of Appeal · 1937
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.