Legal Opinion

Copper Belle Mining Co. v. Gleeson

Arizona Supreme Court

Decided June 6, 1913No. Civil No. 1263PublishedCited by 20 opinions

APPEAL from a judgment of the District Court of the Second Judicial District, in and for the County of Cochise. Fletcher M. Doan, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the CourtFranklin, C. J.

Assumpsit for money had and received. The contention of appellant, in substance, is that appellee has money belonging to it which in equity and good conscience he ought to return. On this theory the suit was prosecuted for its recovery. Omitting the unessentials, the facts may be stated as follows: The San Remo Copper Mining Company was the owner, subject to the paramount title of the United States, of some mining claims situate in Cochise county Arizona. Mr. Gleeson, the defendant below and the appellee here, had performed labor thereupon for which he had not been paid. He brought suit…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. Manning v. PolingSupreme Court of Iowa · 1900
  2. Lewark v. CarterIndiana Supreme Court · 1889
  3. Hardaway v. Southern RailwaySupreme Court of South Carolina · 1912
  4. Weaver v. StacySupreme Court of Iowa · 1895
  5. Henderson v. KoenigSupreme Court of Missouri · 1906

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

3Cited by20 opinions

  1. Champ Spring Co. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1931
  2. Merrill v. GordonArizona Supreme Court · 1914
  3. Kemp v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1926
  4. Barth v. A. & B. Schuster Co.Arizona Supreme Court · 1923
  5. PLM Tax Certificate Program 1991-92, L.P. v. SchweikertCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2007

15 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