Conde v. Sweeney
California Court of Appeal
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Tuolumne County granting an injunction to restrain the levy of a writ of attachment. G. W. Nicol, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtChipman, P. J.
This is an action to restrain the defendant from levying a writ of attachment. In their complaint the plaintiffs alleged ownership and possession of certain quartz mining claims, known as the Dreisam mines, “together with all the fixtures and all other machinery and tools used in working and developing said mines”; that on June 15, 1908, plaintiffs entered into a written agreement with the Parlin Gold Mining Company, whereby plaintiffs agreed to sell said mines to said company for a certain sum, which was to be paid on or before May 1, 1909; that for a consideration the time of payment was…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Miller v. WaddinghamCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
- Pomeroy v. BellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1897
3Cited by6 opinions
- Teater v. Good Hope Development Corp.California Supreme Court · 1939
- Southern Pacific Land Co. v. KigginsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1930
- Conde v. SweeneyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1911
- Kovalenko v. Kirkland & Ellis LLPDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2024
- Maxim I Properties v. KrohnDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2025
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.