Saunders v. La Purisima Gold Mining Co.
California Supreme Court
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Tuolumne County granting a new trial. Q-. W. Mcol, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtVak Dyke, J.
This action is to determine conflicting claims to a tract of land, being a portion of section 36, township-2 north, range 13 east, Mount Diablo meridian, containing six hundred acres, located in Tuolumne county.
On September 1, 1870, the official United States survey of said township was completed, and the lands therein sectionized. On the eighteenth day of February, 1871, the official plat of said township was approved by the United States surveyor general for California, and filed in h-is office. In this official plat of said township section 36 was marked and returned as being agricultural…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Smelting Co. v. KempSupreme Court of the United States · 1882
- Johnson v. TowsleySupreme Court of the United States · 1871
- Steel v. Smelting Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1882
- Wright v. RoseberrySupreme Court of the United States · 1887
- Barden v. Northern Pacific RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1894
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Ames v. Empire Star Mines Co., Ltd.California Supreme Court · 1941
- Olive Land & Development Co. v. OlmsteadU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern California · 1900
- Newcomb v. City of Newport BeachCalifornia Supreme Court · 1936
- Brown v. LuddyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1932
- Van Ness v. RooneyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1911
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.