Smith v. Union Oil Co. of Cal.
California Supreme Court
The facts are stated in. the opinion of the court. Thos. O. Toland, Arthur H. Blanchard, and Don G. Bowker, for Appellant.
1Opinion of the CourtShaw, J.
In this action the plaintiff and defendant make adverse claims to a certain parcel of land, each asserting a right of possession thereto as an oil land mineral location, under the acts of Congress provided for the disposition of the mineral lands belonging to the United States. The parcel is in the shape of a parallelogram, one mile from north to south and one-fourth of a mile from east to west, and contains one hundred and sixty acres. The plaintiff in his location calls it the “Schley” claim; the defendant located it as the “Rawley” claim. The court below gave judgment for plaintiff. The…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Pool v. ButlerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1903
- Creede & Cripple Creek Mining & Milling Co. v. Uinta Tunnel Mining & Transportation Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1905
- Miller v. ChrismanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1903
- Weed v. SnookCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
- Big Three Mining & Milling Co. v. HamiltonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1909
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by19 opinions
- People v. KnowlesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1950
- In Re HainesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1925
- Seaboard Acceptance Corp. v. ShayCalifornia Supreme Court · 1931
- Chenoweth v. ChambersCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1917
- Mulville v. City of San DiegoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1920
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.