Legal Opinion

Smith v. Cooley

California Supreme Court

Decided February 12, 1884No. 9,103PublishedCited by 17 opinions

• Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the county of El Dorado. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtMcKee, J.

Plaintiff in the action out of which this case arises being the owner in fee'of a tract of land in El Dorado County known and described as the northwest corner of the northeast quarter of section 9, in township 10 north, range 9 east, Mount Diablo base and meridian, on the 26th of July, 1875, granted to the defendant an interest therein, by the following description, namely: “An undivided third interest in a certain piece of mining ground situated in White Oak Township, county of El Dorado, State of California, on the northwest quarter of the northeast quarter of section 9, township 10 north, *47…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Cave v. CraftsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1878
  2. Duryea v. BurtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1865
  3. Settembre v. PutnamCalifornia Supreme Court · 1866
  4. Jacks v. CookeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1856

3Cited by17 opinions

  1. Callahan v. MartinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1935
  2. J. Bryant Kasey and Maryann Kasey v. Molybdenum Corporation of America, a CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1964
  3. People v. SilverCalifornia Supreme Court · 1940
  4. Chandler v. HartCalifornia Supreme Court · 1911
  5. Swarthout v. GentryCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1943

12 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