Legal Opinion

Wingard v. Banning

California Supreme Court

Decided July 1, 1870No. 2,326PublishedCited by 20 opinions

Appeal from the- District Court of the Seventeenth District, Los Angeles County. Tlio facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the CourtCrockett, J.

The plaintiff sues to recover certain machinery for a quartz mill, which he avers the defendant has converted to his own use. The machinery was originally the property of the Mitchell and Owens Mining Company, from which company the plaintiff deraigns his title through a judgment and execution against the company, a Sheriff’s sale to one Mitchell, and a conveyance from Mitchell to this plaintiff. The defendant is a common carrier, and, as such, contracted with the mining company to transport the machinery from *547San Francisco to Owensville, in Inyo County, which service he duly performed; but…

2Cited by20 opinions

  1. Kearney Milling & Elevator Co. v. Union Pacific Railway Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1896
  2. Gregg v. Illinois Central RailroadIllinois Supreme Court · 1893
  3. Citizens' Bank v. Dows & Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1886
  4. Latta v. TuttonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
  5. Stephens v. CoxCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1923

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

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

Powered by the Exa API