Legal Opinion
Young Construction Co. v. Ruth Gold Mines Co.
Arizona Supreme Court
Decided May 12, 1913No. Civil No. 1305PublishedCited by 10 opinions
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the County of Mohave. Prank J. Duffy, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Per curiam
Motion to dismiss appeal for the reason that no bond has been given on appeal as required by law.
The paper relied upon by appellant as the bond on appeal is as follows:
“In the Superior Court of the State of Arizona in and for the County of Mohave.
“No.-,
“Young Constbuction Company, a Corporation,
Plaintiff,
v.
Ruth Gold Mines Company, a Corporation, and C. D. Van Deman,
Defendant.
“Cost Bond.
“Know all men by these presents, that we, Young Construction Company, as principal, and National Surety Company, a corporation authorized to act as surety within the state of Arizona, surety, do hereby…
2Cited by10 opinions
- Estate of PlattCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942
- Town of Flagstaff v. GomezArizona Supreme Court · 1921
- Yarus v. YarusCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1960
- Bacon v. KesselCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1939
- Lount v. StroussArizona Supreme Court · 1945
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.