Legal Opinion

Carter v. Bacigalupi

California Supreme Court

Decided February 25, 1890No. 13463PublishedCited by 16 opinions

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tuolumne County, and from an order refusing a new trial. tThe facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the Court

Hayne, C.

— This was an action to determine the right to a mining claim. The defendant had judgment, and the plaintiffs appeal. The main points made for the plaintiffs relate to the sufficiency of the location of the defendant’s grantor and the sufficiency of the transfer to the defendant.

1. It was conceded at the trial that the plaintiffs’ locations were properly made and maintained, if the ground was open to location. The defense was, that the ground was not open to location, because the defendant had a pi’ior valid and subsisting claim. And the question is whether he had such a claim.

The…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Hammer v. Garfield Mining & Milling Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1889
  2. Thompson v. SprayCalifornia Supreme Court · 1887
  3. Thompson v. Southern California Motor Road Co.California Supreme Court · 1890

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. Doe v. Waterloo Min. Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1895
  2. Aalwyn's Law Institute v. MartinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1916
  3. Smart v. PeekCalifornia Supreme Court · 1931
  4. McLean v. LadewigCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1934
  5. Allen v. DunlapOregon Supreme Court · 1893

11 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