Legal Opinion

Wolverton v. Nichols

Montana Supreme Court

Decided January 15, 1883PublishedCited by 7 opinions

Appeal from Second District, Silver Bow County.

1Opinion of the CourtWade, C. J.

Actions under the two thousand" three hundred and twenty-sixth section of the Revised Statutes of the United States, to have determined the right to the possession of mining claims, must be instituted according to the forms and practice within the jurisdiction where the suit is commenced.

In this territory, in such cases, if the plaintiff is in possession, he brings his action to quiet title; if he is not in possession, his action is in the nature of ejectment.' In the former case the plaintiff must allege and prove possession; in the latter, he maintains his action if he establishes his right.

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Stark v. StarrsSupreme Court of the United States · 1868
  2. Brooks v. CalderwoodCalifornia Supreme Court · 1868
  3. Lyle v. RollinsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1864
  4. Sepulveda v. SepulvedaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1870
  5. President of San Diego v. AllisonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1873

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Montana Ore Purchasing Co. v. Boston & Montana Consolidated Copper & Silver Mining Co.Montana Supreme Court · 1902
  2. Murray v. PolglaseMontana Supreme Court · 1899
  3. Milligan v. SaveryMontana Supreme Court · 1886
  4. Sklower v. AbbottMontana Supreme Court · 1897
  5. Hoffman v. BeecherMontana Supreme Court · 1892

2 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