Legal Opinion

Eaton v. Norris

California Supreme Court

Decided February 12, 1901No. Sac. No. 699PublishedCited by 7 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the Court

SMITH, C.

An appeal from a judgment against the defendants and from an order denying a new trial. The suit was to quiet title to two mining claims particularly described, and known as the Luella Quartz Mining Claim—and the Extension of the same. The former claim was located January 1, 1896, by the plaintiff; the latter by his wife, who conveyed to him prior to the beginning of the suit—he conveying to her an undivided half of his original claim. The defendants claim under a later location of date January 15, 1898; and their location, being subsequent to the act of March 27, 1897, “prescribing…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Hammer v. Garfield Mining & Milling Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1889
  2. Taylor v. MiddletonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1885
  3. Howeth v. SullengerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
  4. Southern Cross Gold & Silver Mining Co. v. Europa Mining Co.Nevada Supreme Court · 1880
  5. Anderson v. BlackCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Johnson v. RyanNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1939
  2. Gold Creek Antimony Mines & Smelter Co. v. PerryWashington Supreme Court · 1917
  3. Bonanza Consolidated Mining Co. v. Golden Head Mining Co.Utah Supreme Court · 1905
  4. McCleary v. BroaddusCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1910
  5. Bonanza Consolidated Mining Co. v. Golden Head Mining Co.Utah Supreme Court · 1905

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