Hill v. Taylor
California Supreme Court
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
- Harris v. ReynoldsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1859
3Cited by9 opinions
- White v. WhiteCalifornia Supreme Court · 1900
- Walker v. McCuskerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1887
- Connelly v. DicksonIndiana Supreme Court · 1881
- Whithed v. St. Anthony & Dakota Elevator Co.North Dakota Supreme Court · 1900
- Local Realty Co. v. Lindquist Et Ux.Utah Supreme Court · 1938
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.