Synnott v. Shaughnessy
Idaho Supreme Court
APPEAL from District Court, Alturas County. It is not sufficient to find upon a probative fact, from which it might be argued that' the court below was of a certain opinion as respects one of the ultimate facts.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from District Court, Alturas County. It is not sufficient to find upon a probative fact, from which it might be argued that' the court below was of a certain opinion as respects one of the ultimate facts. (Pacific Bridge Go. ■v. Kirhman, 54 Cal. 558; Kahn v. Smelting Co., 102 U. S. 641; Biddell v. Briggs, 56 Cal. 374; French v. Edwards, 21 Wall. 147; Crews v. Brewer, 19 Wall. 70; Marsiers v. Lush, 61 Cal. 146; Lang v. Specht, 62 Cal. 146; Dunn v. Dunn, 62 Cal. 176; Hayne on New Trial and Appeal, 727, 732.) “Whenever the interposition of a middleman or go-between is used to effect a…
1Dissent
BUCK, J.,
Dissenting. — In the discussion of this question I shall not consider that branch of the case which is founded upon the law which requires the vendee not to mislead the vendor. While I have been unable to find any authorities that hold that the words “ore body” are synonymous with or the equivalent of the words “lode,” “vein,” or “ledge,” and therefore have some doubt as to whether the finding that no lode or vein of ore was known, or had been discovered, is responsive to the allegation that the defendant had discovered a lode or body of ore, yet I desire to pass by that matter,…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Le Clert v. OullahanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1877
- Harris v. BurnsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1876