Legal Opinion

Hames v. Rust

California Supreme Court

Decided August 1, 1939No. Sac. 5264PublishedCited by 30 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

THE COURT.

Defendant Deer Creek Union Mining Company appeals from an order granting a new trial to the plaintiffs on the ground of insufficiency of the evidence.

The action is one to quiet title in and to certain mining property. It appears that the plaintiffs claim an interest in the property by reason of a contract of purchase entered into with the owner Nihell on October 29, 1937, which contract amended or superseded an earlier contract substantially to the same effect and bearing date June 21, 1937. The interest of the defendant mining company in the property arises under a lease with…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Wendling Lumber Co. v. Glenwood Lumber Co.California Supreme Court · 1908
  2. Peri v. CulleyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1931
  3. Hanlon Drydock & Shipbuilding Co. v. Southern Pacific Co.California Court of Appeal · 1928
  4. Prout v. PerkinsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1937
  5. Weringer v. RutledgeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1919

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

3Cited by30 opinions

  1. Mercer v. PerezCalifornia Supreme Court · 1968
  2. Ballard v. Pacific Greyhound LinesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1946
  3. Elkins v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 2007
  4. Dempsey v. Market Street Railway Co.California Supreme Court · 1943
  5. McFarland v. Voorheis-Trindle Co.California Supreme Court · 1959

25 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