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 main facts are stated in the opinion of the court. The bulkhead spoken of in the last clause of the opinion was erected in the works as an agreed boundary after the defendant Rice had excavated the vein at the point of intersection, and after the drifts in the two mines had come together.
1Opinion of the Court
Garoutte, J.—
This action was brought to recover the value of certain gold alleged to have been taken by respondents from the mining claim of appellant. The facts, briefly stated, are as follows: For many years prior to January 17, 1886, respondent Gillis was in the peaceable possession of, and claiming to be the owner of, a certain mining claim known as the Carrington claim. "Upon said date he sold and transferred to appellant, by bargain and sale deed, a portion of the Carrington claim designated as the Pine Tree mine. At the date of this transfer the co-respondent Rice was working upon a…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Belcher Consolidated Gold Mining Co. v. DeferrariCalifornia Supreme Court · 1882
- Champion Mining Co. v. Consol. Wyoming Gold Mining Co.California Supreme Court · 1888
- Stockton v. GarfriasCalifornia Supreme Court · 1859
3Cited by6 opinions
- Kramer v. SanguinettiCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1939
- Peck v. HowardCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1946
- Kramer v. Gladding, McBean & Co.California Court of Appeal · 1938
- Locke v. MoultonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895
- Stinchfield v. GillisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1895
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.