Rogers v. Gladiator Gold Min. & Mill. Co.
South Dakota Supreme Court
Appeal from Circuit Court, Lawrence County. Hon. W. G. Riot, Judge. Actions by Burt Rogers against the Gladiator Gold Mining & Milling Company, Gold Fish Mining Company, Red Cloud Mining Company, and Cephas H. Crabtree, joined as a defendant in each action. From a judgment in> favor of plaintiff in each action, and from an order denying defendants’ application for a new trial, they appeal.
1Opinion of the CourtCorson, J.
Three actions were instituted by the plaintiff entitled as follows: “Burt Rogers v. Gold Mining & Milling Com*414pany and Cephas H. Crabtree”; “Burt Rogers v. Gold Fish Mining Company and Cephas H. Crabtree”; “Burt Rogers v. Red Cloud Mining Company and Cephas H. Crabtree” — all of which weie tried as one; the jury returning a verdict in favor of the plaintiff upon each cause of action thus united. Judgment was entered accordingly, and, their application for a new trial having been denied, the defendants appealed.
The pleadigs in each case are substantially as follows : Plaintiff alleges that the…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Oscanyan v. Arms Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1881
- Upton v. TribilcockSupreme Court of the United States · 1875
- Brace v. Van EpsSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1899
- Haggarty v. StrongSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1898
- Seim v. KrauseSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1900
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Kirkup v. Anaconda Amusement Co.Montana Supreme Court · 1921
- Randall Printing Co. v. Sanitas Mineral Water Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1913
- Webster v. Webster Refining Co. of OkmulgeeSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1912
- Schiller Piano Co. v. HydeSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1917
- Axford v. Western Syndicate Investment Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1918
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.