Legal Opinion

Bielenberg v. Higgins

Montana Supreme Court

Decided May 13, 1929No. 6,456PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJustice Angstman

This is an appeal from a judgment entered in favor of defendants after demurrers to plaintiff’s amended complaint were sustained.

The material allegations of the amended complaint are as follows: That Nicholas J. Bielenberg and W. I. Higgins each owned an undivided one-half interest in a group of mining claims in Madison county, and during and prior to the year 1917 they were engaged in working the claims under the partnership name of Bielenberg & Higgins; that no mining operations have been conducted by the partnership since 1917, but the partners have been engaged in efforts to sell the…

2Cases cited35 opinions

  1. Parchen v. ChessmanMontana Supreme Court · 1914
  2. Ruiz v. Santa Barbara Gas & Elec. Co.California Supreme Court · 1912
  3. Adams v. StenehjemMontana Supreme Court · 1915
  4. Grogan v. Valley Trading Co.Montana Supreme Court · 1904
  5. Marcellus v. WrightMontana Supreme Court · 1916

30 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Ashley v. Safeway Stores, Inc.Montana Supreme Court · 1935
  2. Pincus v. DavisMontana Supreme Court · 1933
  3. Stagg v. StaggMontana Supreme Court · 1931
  4. Miller Insurance Agency v. Home Fire & Marine InsuranceMontana Supreme Court · 1935
  5. Wertzberger v. McJunkinSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1935

3 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