Legal Opinion
McClung v. Paradise Gold Mining Co.
California Supreme Court
Decided January 15, 1913No. S.F. No. 5670PublishedCited by 7 opinions
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. L. L. Cory, Carrier & Richards, and Canfield & Starbuek, for Appellant.
1Opinion of the Court
THE COURT.
This case was decided by the district court of the third appellate district. That court sustained the judgment upon plaintiff’s individual claim and that against defendant Lyall, who does not appeal, but reversed the judgment as to those claims assigned to plaintiff. Since we agree with the district court of appeal except as to the last conclusion, we adopt so much of the opinion of that court, written by Mr. Presiding Justice Chipman, as is applicable:
“The action is for the enforcement of laborer’s liens against the property of defendant mining company and for judgment against…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Duncan v. HawnCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
- Hines v. MillerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
- Mills v. La Verne Land Co.California Supreme Court · 1893
- People v. MoxleyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1911
- Continental Building & Loan Ass'n v. HuttonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Hammond Lumber Co. v. Barth Investment Corp.California Supreme Court · 1927
- Hammond Lumber Co. v. Barth Investment Corp.California Supreme Court · 1927
- Fredericksen v. HarneyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1962
- Hammond Lumber Co. v. RichardsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1928
- Beard v. Lancaster Midway Oil Co.California Court of Appeal · 1925
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.