Eriksson v. Wise
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the CourtGriffin, J.
J.Appellants instituted this quiet title action against respondent, alleging that they were the owners of three quartz mining claims, known as the Antimony No. 1, Antimony No. 2, and Black Eagle Antimony, all situated in the Wild Rose Mining District in Inyo County, and that respondent, without right, claims an interest therein adverse to them. Respondent answered, denied generally the allegations of the complaint, and by way of cross-complaint he, after setting out certain claimed rights by virtue of a partnership agreement, leases, and contracts which were contended to be irreconcilable…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Trice v. ComstockCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1903
- Flagg v. MannU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · 1837
- Menefee v. OxnamCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1919
- Moritz v. LavelleCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
- Del Giorgio v. PowersCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1938
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Maguire v. LeesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1946
- King v. Stanton (In Re Stanton)United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Ninth Circuit · 1984