Legal Opinion

Musick Consolidated Oil Co. v. Chandler

California Supreme Court

Decided June 10, 1910No. L.A. No. 2461PublishedCited by 18 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtShaw, J.

Appeals from an interlocutory judgment of partition and from an order denying Chandler’s motion for new trial. The complaint asks partition of certain oil lands, known as the Musick Consolidated Petroleum and Asphalt Placer Mining Claim, containing some 718 acres. The court found that the plaintiff owns thirty-one forty-eighths of the land, that Burdette Chandler owns eight forty-eighths, that Bernard Sinsheimer owns six forty-eighths, and that Abraham Stone and four others, as heirs of Jacob Stone own three forty-eighths. (There were twenty average acres to be taken from the plaintiff’s…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Koyer v. WillmonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1907
  2. Hall v. VernonWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1899
  3. Mitchell v. ClineCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
  4. Smith v. CooleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1884
  5. Dangerfield v. CaldwellCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1907

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

3Cited by18 opinions

  1. Perelli-Minetti v. LawsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1928
  2. Bastjan v. BastjanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1932
  3. Swarthout v. GentryCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1943
  4. Scott v. JungquistCalifornia Supreme Court · 1918
  5. Brown v. FairbanksCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1953

13 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