Legal Opinion

Cram v. Church

Utah Supreme Court

Decided June 23, 1959No. 8926PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

COWLEY, District Judge.

Plaintiffs brought this action to quiet title to an unpatented mining claim known as the Apple Jack. Defendants in their answer denied the validity of the Apple Jack claim of the plaintiffs and sought by counterclaim to quiet title to-their alleged unpatented mining claims-known as the J.M.T. No. 1 and J.M.T. No. 2. The Apple Jack claim was prior in time and was staked over by the two> J.M.T. claims. The trial court quieted' title in the plaintiffs to the Apple Jack claim and dismissed the Counterclaim-Defendants appeal seeking a reversal of the judgment upholding the…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Watson v. MayberryUtah Supreme Court · 1897
  2. Kirk v. MeldrumSupreme Court of Colorado · 1901
  3. Brewster v. ShoemakerSupreme Court of Colorado · 1900
  4. Moyle v. BulleneColorado Court of Appeals · 1896
  5. Lockhart v. FarrellUtah Supreme Court · 1906

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

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Ranchers Exploration and Development Co. v. Anaconda Co.District Court, D. Utah · 1965

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

Powered by the Exa API