Dwinnell v. Dyer
California Supreme Court
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the Court
Action to quiet title to a mining claim. In his complaint, filed November 30, 1900, the plaintiff alleged among other things that he was, and for a long time had been, the owner, entitled to the possession, and in the exclusive possession, of a quartz-lode mining claim, known as the Cuban Beauty No. 2; that on the 15th of November, 1900, the defendants had entered upon the claim with force and arms and had driven off the men employed by him to do the necessary assessment-work for that year; that they had taken possession of the ground, claimed to own it, and were excavating and removing the…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Belk v. MeagherSupreme Court of the United States · 1881
- Jupiter Mining Co. v. Bodie Consolidated Mining Co.District Court, D. California · 1881
- Gleeson v. Martin White Mining Co.Nevada Supreme Court · 1878
- North Noonday Mining Co. v. Orient Mining Co.United States Circuit Court · 1880
- Golden Fleece G. & S. M. Co. v. Cable Consolidated G. & S. M. Co.Nevada Supreme Court · 1877
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Stock v. PlunkettCalifornia Supreme Court · 1919
- Big Three Mining & Milling Co. v. HamiltonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1909
- Anderson v. CaugheyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1906
- Little Sespe Consolidated Oil Co. v. BacigalupiCalifornia Supreme Court · 1914
- McCleary v. BroaddusCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1910
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.