Salstrom v. Orleans Bar Gold Mining Co.
California Supreme Court
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. - L. P. Puter, Denver Sevier, and Page, McCutchen & Knight, for Appellant.
1Opinion of the CourtAngellotti, J.
This is an appeal from a judgment and an order denying a new trial in an action brought by plaintiffs for damages to their land, alleged to have been caused by unlawful acts of defendant in conducting its hydraulic mining operations. There was a verdict in plaintiffs’ favor for nine thousand dollars. On motion for new trial, the trial court ordered that the motion be granted unless plaintiffs remitted all over and above seven thousand dollars, and costs of suit, in which event the motion was to be'denied. This plaintiffs did by filing their written consent to the modification of the judgment…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Hartshorn v. . ChaddockNew York Court of Appeals · 1892
- Spring Valley Water Works v. DrinkhouseCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
- Hill v. SmithCalifornia Supreme Court · 1865
- Hobbs v. Amador & Sacramento Canal Co.California Supreme Court · 1884
- Fitzpatrick v. MontgomeryMontana Supreme Court · 1897
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by27 opinions
- Lightner Mining Co. v. LaneCalifornia Supreme Court · 1911
- Green v. General Petroleum Corp.California Supreme Court · 1928
- Deevy v. TassiCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942
- Bullock v. Phillip Morris USA, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2008
- Heninger v. DunnCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1980
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.