Kohl v. Lilienthal
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the city and county of San Francisco, and from an order denying a new trial. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtFox, J.
In 1882 two mining corporations—the Head Center Consolidated Mining Company, organized under the laws of California, and the Tranquility Mining Company, organized under the laws of New Jersey, were in possession of adjoining mining claims in the Tombstone mining district in the territory of Arizona. Litigation'of a vexatious character had arisen between them, and for the purpose of discontinuing the strife and of promoting the mutual interests of both companies, negotiations were entered into with a view to effecting a consolidation of the interests and properties of the two. Being organized…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Miners' Ditch Co. v. ZellerbachCalifornia Supreme Court · 1869
- Martin v. ZellerbachCalifornia Supreme Court · 1869
- Gashwiler v. WillisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1867
- Wright v. Oroville Gold, Silver, & Copper Mining Co.California Supreme Court · 1870
- Carpentier v. MendenhallCalifornia Supreme Court · 1865
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by37 opinions
- Schulte v. Boulevard Gardens Land Co.California Supreme Court · 1913
- Burne v. LeeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1909
- Atkinson v. Western Development SyndicateCalifornia Supreme Court · 1915
- Hutton v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1932
- Hitch v. . HawleyNew York Court of Appeals · 1892
32 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.