Legal Opinion

Smart v. Staunton

Arizona Supreme Court

Decided September 16, 1925No. Civil No. 2296PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

This action was brought by appellant, plaintiff below, to quiet his title to two unpatented mining claims, named the Great Divide No. 1 and Great Divide No. 2, against the adverse claims of the appellees, defendants below, who answered, denying plaintiff's title, and setting up their ownership of two unpatented mining claims covering the same ground, and known as Sans Gene No. 1 amended and Sans Gene No. 2 amended, and praying that their title be quieted as against the plaintiff's adverse claims. The case was tried without a jury, and the court found the facts upon which judgment went…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Haws v. Victoria Copper Mining Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1895
  2. Butte & Superior Copper Co. v. Clark-Montana Realty Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1919
  3. Rush v. FrenchArizona Supreme Court · 1874
  4. Emerson v. McWhirterCalifornia Supreme Court · 1901
  5. Yosemite Gold Mining & Milling Co. v. EmersonSupreme Court of the United States · 1908

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Scoggin v. MillerWyoming Supreme Court · 1948
  2. Goldfield Mines, Inc. v. HandCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1985
  3. Golden Eagle-Bobtail Mines, Inc. v. Valley National BankArizona Supreme Court · 1943
  4. Sunburst Minerals LLC v. Emerald Copper CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2020

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API