Biglow v. Conradt
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
1Opinion of the CourtMorrow, Circuit Judge
(after stating- the facts as above).
The case is here on the sufficiency of the facts found by the court to support the judgment. The findings have not been carefully prepared, and do not state ultimate facts with fullness or precision; but a fair and reasonable construction of all the findings, taken together, will enable this court to determine the questions in controversy. O’Reilly v. Campbell, 116 U.S. 418, 420, 421, 6 S.Ct. 421, 29 L.Ed. 669. Plaintiffs’ claim to the right of possession of the overlap rests mainly upon two facts drawn from the findings of the court. The first of these…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Belk v. MeagherSupreme Court of the United States · 1881
- Haws v. Victoria Copper Mining Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1895
- O'REILLY v. CampbellSupreme Court of the United States · 1886
- Ellers v. BoatmanUtah Supreme Court · 1881
- McIntosh v. PriceCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1903
3Cited by8 opinions
- Martin v. Globe Bank & Trust Co. of PaducahCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1912
- Neuberger v. FelisSupreme Court of Alabama · 1919
- Ranchers Exploration and Development Co. v. Anaconda Co.District Court, D. Utah · 1965
- Hall v. McKinnonCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1911
- Barrett v. KaiglerSupreme Court of Alabama · 1917
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.