Legal Opinion

Iowa Gold Mining Co. v. Diefenthaler

Supreme Court of Colorado

Decided April 15, 1904No. 4404PublishedCited by 9 opinions

Appeal from the District Court of San Juan County.

1Opinion of the CourtChief Justice Gabbert

When the bill of exceptions was first lodged in this court, the appellee moved to strike it from the files. The motion was denied, because the ground upon which it was based, in so far as it was sought to attack the correctness of the bill, could not be established in the manner attempted. Leave was granted the appellee to withdraw the bill for the purpose of amendment. It was withdrawn for this purpose. Amendments were allowed by the trial judge, and the bill returned. The result is, that in some particulars the record is confused, but on the vital question in the case it is clear. Before…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Jenney Electric Light & Power Co. v. MurphyIndiana Supreme Court · 1888
  2. Denver Tramway Co. v. NesbitSupreme Court of Colorado · 1896
  3. Rogers v. Galveston City Railway Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1890

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Monarch Mining & Development Co. v. DeVoeSupreme Court of Colorado · 1906
  2. Elkton Consolidated Mining & Milling Co. v. SullivanSupreme Court of Colorado · 1907
  3. McLennon v. Whitney-Steen Co.Supreme Court of Colorado · 1917
  4. Metallic Gold Mining Co. v. WatsonSupreme Court of Colorado · 1911
  5. Cripple Creek Sampling & Ore Co. v. SouzaSupreme Court of Colorado · 1906

4 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