Math v. Crescent Hill Gold Mines Co.
California Court of Appeal
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtHart, J.
An opinion affirming the judgment and the order appealed from in this action was filed by this court on June 19, 1916. A rehearing was within due time granted on the petition of the appellant for the reason, as stated in the order granting the rehearing, that the petition called “attention to some evidence that seems to have been overlooked when the case was decided.” The former opinion contained the following statement of the facts and the issues' as the same are presented in the pleadings of the respective parties:
“Plaintiff worked as a miner for defendant, at its mine in Plumas county,…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Furlong v. WhiteCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1921
- Keohane v. KeohaneCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1918
- San Joaquin Brick Co. v. MulcahyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1922