Legal Opinion

Higgins v. Carlotta Gold Mining Co.

California Supreme Court

Decided February 12, 1906No. Sac. No. 1129PublishedCited by 10 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. -

1Opinion of the CourtShaw, J.

In this case a number of persons who had performed labor upon a mine filed separate claims of lien on the two mining claims constituting the mine for the sums due them, respectively, for such labor, and afterwards began the actions involved in this appeal to foreclose their said liens. Several separate actions were begun, but before the trial all were consolidated and tried as one case. The parties defendant were the Carlotta Gold Mining Company, which was the owner of the mining claims, and David Naegle, David Miller, and J. B. Coleman, who were lessees thereof, operating the mine under a…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Williams v. Santa Clara Mining Ass'n of Balt.California Supreme Court · 1884
  2. Williams v. HawleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
  3. Hines v. MillerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
  4. Reese v. Bald Mountain Consolidated Gold Mining Co.California Supreme Court · 1901
  5. Jurgenson v. DillerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Lamb v. Goldfield Lucky Boy Mining Co.Nevada Supreme Court · 1914
  2. Dahlman v. ThomasWashington Supreme Court · 1915
  3. Milner v. ShueyNevada Supreme Court · 1936
  4. McClung v. Paradise Gold Mining Co.California Supreme Court · 1913
  5. Hanover Res., LLC v. LML Props., LLCWest Virginia Supreme Court · 2019

5 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