Temescal Oil Mining & Development Co. v. Salcido
California Supreme Court
The facts are stated in the opinion. W. A. Harris, Barnes & Selby, and Edward M. Selby, for Appellant. R. F. Del Valle, H. L. Poplin, Joseph L. Murphey, and Richards & Carrier, for Respondents.
1Opinion of the Court
GRAY, C.
This action is brought to quiet title to a certain tract of land in Ventura County consisting of the north half of the northwest quarter and the southeast quarter of the northwest quarter of section 12, township 4 north, range 18 west, San Bernardino meridian. Both parties claim the land under oil-mining locations.
The ease was tried with a jury, and resulted in a verdict and judgment for defendants. Plaintiff appeals from the judgment and from an order denying its motion for a new trial.
Defendants’ claim embraces the whole of the northwest quarter of said section 12, and was located…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Belcher Consolidated Gold Mining Co. v. DeferrariCalifornia Supreme Court · 1882
- White v. LeeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
3Cited by10 opinions
- Kern Oil Co. v. CrawfordCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
- Bergquist v. West Virginia-Wyoming Copper Co.Wyoming Supreme Court · 1910
- Thornton v. KaufmanMontana Supreme Court · 1910
- Peachy v. GaddisArizona Supreme Court · 1912
- Lucky Five Mining Co. v. Central Idaho Placer Gold Mining Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1951
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.