Legal Opinion

Wulf v. Manuel

Montana Supreme Court

Decided January 15, 1890PublishedCited by 2 opinions

On rehearing.

1Opinion of the CourtDe Witt, J.

A statement of this case appears fully in the opinion on the original hearing, and will not be repeated. We now learn that we fell into an error of fact, for w'hich the rehearing was granted. In the record appear the names, Alfred Manuel and Fred Manuel. The similarity of the names, and the fact that Fred is an ordinary abbreviation for Alfred, led us *287to believe that these names repi'esented one person, and that he was called indifferently Alfred and Fred. Our attention is now called to the fact that Alfred was the locator of the Marshal Ney Claim, and that Fred was the person who appears as…

Also in this document: Concurrence.

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Garfield M. & M. Co. v. HammerMontana Supreme Court · 1886
  2. Hopkins v. NoyesMontana Supreme Court · 1883
  3. Morenhaut v. WilsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1877
  4. Dutch Flat Water Co. v. MooneyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1859
  5. Renshaw v. SwitzerMontana Supreme Court · 1887

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Power v. SlaMontana Supreme Court · 1900
  2. Mattingly v. LewisohnMontana Supreme Court · 1893

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

Powered by the Exa API