Legal Opinion

Weese v. Barker

Supreme Court of Colorado

Decided December 15, 1883PublishedCited by 16 opinions

Appeal from District Court of Park County. The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the Court

Beck, ,0- J.

The principal errors assigned are that the district court erred in allowing the amended complaint *179to be filed, and in making Benbow and Hussey parties to the action.

The action was originally instituted by Barker and Wade as plaintiffs, alleging that they were entitled to one undivided one-half, or each to one undivided one-fourth, of the Tanner Boy lode, and that the defendants had wrongfully entered upon said claim and taken possession thereof, to the exclusion of the plaintiffs and their grantors, etc.

Afterwards leave was granted the plaintiffs, after service of notice upon…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Mahoney v. Van WinkleCalifornia Supreme Court · 1863
  2. Harlan v. SmithCalifornia Supreme Court · 1856
  3. Hutchings v. EbelerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1873

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. International Harvester Co. of America v. CameronSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1909
  2. Carlson v. McNeillSupreme Court of Colorado · 1945
  3. Hinojos v. LohmannColorado Court of Appeals · 2008
  4. Du Prat v. JamesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1884
  5. Crowe v. WarnarkeeSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1925

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