Legal Opinion

Johanson v. White

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided February 3, 1908No. 1,459PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtGilbert, Circuit Judge

(after stating the facts as above). The court, in charging the jury to return a ver*27diet for the defendant in error, evidently regarded the case as one falling within the rule, expressed in numerous decisions, that one who in good faith makes his location, remains in possession, and with due diligence proceeds to make discovery, is fully protected against all forms of forcible, fraudulent, surreptitious, or clandestine entries or intrusions upon his possession. It may be conceded that the rule would be applicable here, if the entry and possession of the plaintiff in error were of the character…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Belk v. MeagherSupreme Court of the United States · 1881
  2. Garthe v. HartCalifornia Supreme Court · 1887
  3. Horswell v. RuizCalifornia Supreme Court · 1885
  4. Crossman v. PenderyU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Colorado · 1881
  5. Gemmell v. SwainMontana Supreme Court · 1903

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Cook v. KlonosCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1908
  2. United States v. HurstDistrict Court, D. Wyoming · 1924
  3. Hanson v. CraigCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1909
  4. Ranchers Exploration and Development Co. v. Anaconda Co.District Court, D. Utah · 1965
  5. Cook v. JohnsonDistrict Court, D. Alaska · 1908

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API