Garibaldi v. Grillo
California Court of Appeal
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Amador County, and from an order denying a new trial. Fred V. Wood, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtChipman, P. J.
Action to quiet title to a placer mining claim.
The court made findings that neither plaintiffs nor defendants were “at the commencement of -the action or at any other time the owners of” the land severally claimed by them or any part thereof. Plaintiffs appeal from the judgment and from the order denying their motion for a new trial. Defendants do not appeal, and are in no position to attack the findings and conclusions of law respecting the land claimed by them. (Trevaskis v. Peard, 111 Cal. 599, [44 Pac. 246].)
Appellants contend that they made sufficient proof of location and of discovery…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Chrisman v. MillerSupreme Court of the United States · 1905
- Pool v. ButlerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1903
- Miller v. ChrismanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1903
- Trevaskis v. PeardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
3Cited by17 opinions
- Hollywood Cleaning & Pressing Co. v. Hollywood Laundry Service, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1932
- McLean v. LadewigCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1934
- Sharum v. City of MuskogeeSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1914
- Veale v. PiercyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1962
- Lind v. BakerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1939
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.