Legal Opinion

Hill v. Taylor

California Supreme Court

Decided July 1, 1863PublishedCited by 9 opinions

Appeal from the Seventeenth Judicial District. The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the CourtCrocker, J.

The complainant in this action avers that the defendants are a mining company; that Taylor, one of the defendants, was the owner of one-third of the mining claims of the company and mortgaged the same to one Conley, who assigned the mortgage to the plaintiff; that he foreclosed the mortgage, and on the twelfth day of April, 1862, purchased the interest mortgaged at the sale under the decree of foreclosure; that a certificate of sale duly issued to him ; that the defendants are working the claims and taking out gold therefrom; that the dividends upon said one-third interest have been from…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Harris v. ReynoldsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1859

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. White v. WhiteCalifornia Supreme Court · 1900
  2. Walker v. McCuskerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1887
  3. Connelly v. DicksonIndiana Supreme Court · 1881
  4. Whithed v. St. Anthony & Dakota Elevator Co.North Dakota Supreme Court · 1900
  5. Local Realty Co. v. Lindquist Et Ux.Utah Supreme Court · 1938

4 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