Robinson v. Muir
California Supreme Court
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtSloss, J.
The plaintiff commenced this action to quiet his title to. four placer mining claims known as the “Manhattan,” the “Weske No. 1,” the “Weske No. 2,” and the “Weske No. 3” mines, and to a ditch or canal known as the “Dead Horse Mining Ditch,” all situate in Placer County. The action was dismissed as to the defendant Hamilton, the other three defendants answering separately. White set up a claim of title to the “Manhattan” mine. Muir and Chapin filed answers, iu which each denied the plaintiff’s allegation of •ownership, and claimed title in himself to an undivided one-half interest in all the…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- Frost v. SpitleySupreme Court of the United States · 1887
- San Diego Land & Town Co. v. NealeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
- Riley v. MartinelliCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
- Foorman v. WallaceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
- McDonald v. McCoyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by31 opinions
- Brewer v. Second Baptist ChurchCalifornia Supreme Court · 1948
- Smith v. LombardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1927
- Moore v. SchneiderCalifornia Supreme Court · 1925
- Washington State Sugar Co. v. GoodrichIdaho Supreme Court · 1915
- Strong v. StrongCalifornia Supreme Court · 1943
26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.