Stinchfield v. Gillis
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tuolumne County and from an order denying a new trial. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtHarrison, J.
Upon the former appeal in this case (96 Cal. 33) it appeared that the Carrington mine was a single claim held by the defendant Gillis, of which he had sold a portion to the plaintiff, and it was held that by virtue of his deed to the plaintiff Gillis was es-topped from questioning the right of his grantee to all of the gold found within the surface lines of the deed, irrespective of the depth below the surface at which it was found. After the case went down to the superior court for another trial the defendants amended their answers, presenting issues to the effect that the tract of ground…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Stinchfield v. GillisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
3Cited by5 opinions
- Montana Ore Purchasing Co. v. Boston & Montana Consolidated Copper & Silver Mining Co.Montana Supreme Court · 1902
- Montana Min. Co. v. St. Louis Min. & Mill. Co. of MontanaCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1900
- Butte & Boston Mining Co. v. Societe Anonyme des Mines de LexingtonMontana Supreme Court · 1899
- Boston & M. Consol. Copper & Silver Min. Co. v. Montana Ore-Purchasing Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Montana · 1898
- Midwest-Butte Development Co. v. Butte West Side Mines Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1929