Legal Opinion

Oroville-Wyandotte Irrigation District v. Ford

California Court of Appeal

Decided October 29, 1941No. Civ. 6651PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtThompson, Acting P. J.

The defendants, Frank Stahl and Honeut Gold Mines Company, Ltd., have appealed from a judgment quieting title against them to seven mining claims in Butte County, together with mining machinery and apparatus used on the premises. In support of its title the plaintiff relies upon certain deeds of conveyance executed in February, 1934, by the collector of the irrigation district upon sales of the lands to the plaintiff for delinquent assessments which were levied in 1929, as provided by sections 43-48 of the California Irrigation Act. (Stats. 1897, p. 254, and amendments thereto; 1 Deering’s…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Callahan v. MartinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1935
  2. Hendy v. DinkerhoffCalifornia Supreme Court · 1880
  3. La Mesa Lemon Grove & Spring Valley Irrigation District v. HornbeckCalifornia Supreme Court · 1932
  4. Teater v. Good Hope Development Corp.California Supreme Court · 1939
  5. Dougery v. BettencourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1931

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Kaiser Co. v. ReidCalifornia Supreme Court · 1947
  2. Russell v. Golden Rule Mining Co.Arizona Supreme Court · 1945
  3. Bridges v. Cal-Pacific Leasing Co.California Court of Appeal · 1971
  4. Nead v. Specimen Hill Mining Co.California Court of Appeal · 1942
  5. Camp v. MatichCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1948

2 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