Legal Opinion

McCann v. McMillan

California Supreme Court

Decided July 30, 1900No. L.A. No. 653PublishedCited by 8 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the Court

THE COURT

Plaintiffs brought this action to quiet their title to three mining claims known as the Compromise, Handy, and Sixteen to One, situate in Calico mining district, San Bernardino county. Findings and judgment were for the plaintiffs, and defendant Barkley appeals from the judgment and from an order denying his motion for a new trial. Defendant McMillan answered, disclaiming all interest in the property involved.

A general outline of some material facts is essential to a comprehension of the points in controversy.

Prior to January 1, 1896, H. B. Stevens and Eugenia D. Porter located…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Carter v. BacigalupiCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
  2. Myers v. SpoonerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1880

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. McLean v. LadewigCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1934
  2. Northern Assurance Co. v. StoutCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1911
  3. Denman v. SmithCalifornia Supreme Court · 1939
  4. Worthen v. SidwaySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1904
  5. Clarke v. MalloryCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1937

3 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