Legal Opinion

Morse v. De Ardo

California Supreme Court

Decided July 2, 1895No. 18440PublishedCited by 10 opinions

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tuolumne County. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtHenshaw, J.

Appeal from the judgment.

The action is to foreclose a lien upon defendants’ property for labor performed upon a mine situated thereon.

Defendant De Ardo was the owner under patent from the United States for agricultural lands of a farm containing about one hundred and sixty acres. He had sunk a shaft upon his land and discovered a bed of auriferous gravel. He had then bonded his land to his codefendant, Howes, with privilege to Howes of working the gravel deposit and developing the mine. Howes engaged plaintiffs in and about this work, and, having failed to pay them, they seek by this action…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Williams v. Santa Clara Mining Ass'n of Balt.California Supreme Court · 1884
  2. Helm v. ChapmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1885
  3. Bewick v. MuirCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
  4. Mount Diablo Mill & Mining Co. v. CallisonU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Nevada · 1879

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Berentz v. Belmont Oil Mining Co.California Supreme Court · 1906
  2. Ferger v. GearhartCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1919
  3. Johnson v. California Lustral Co.California Supreme Court · 1899
  4. Escott v. Crescent Coal & Nav. Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1910
  5. Standard Pipe & Supply Co. v. Red Rock Co.California Court of Appeal · 1943

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