Legal Opinion

Anderson v. Caughey

California Court of Appeal

Decided February 5, 1906No. Civ. No. 159PublishedCited by 10 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtChipman, P. J.

Action to quiet title to certain quartz mining land situated in Lassen county. The court found that plaintiff, on February 1, 1901, attempted to locate a quartz mining claim on Hayden Hill, Lassen county, to be known as the “Greenback Quartz Claim,” but that at the time the claim was not open to location; that defendants and their grantors had a prior, existing, valid location upon the mining claim described in the complaint ; that defendants and their grantors located and have been in possession and worked the said mining claim continuously since August 8, 1893, “ except a triangular strip…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Ex parte WilliamsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1897
  2. Adams v. CrawfordCalifornia Supreme Court · 1897
  3. Carter v. BacigalupiCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
  4. Dwinnell v. DyerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Schlegel v. HoughOregon Supreme Court · 1947
  2. Thornton v. PhelanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1924
  3. Wailes v. DaviesU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Nevada · 1907
  4. Musser v. FittingCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1915
  5. Morgan v. SorensonUtah Supreme Court · 1955

5 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