Garthe v. Hart
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Nevada County, and from an order refusing a new trial. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
Hayne, C.
— Action of ejectment for a mining claim. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff. Defendants appeal.
1. The plaintiff gave evidence tending to show a location in 1881, and a subsequent location in 1884, the marking of the boundaries under these locations, and the recórding of both claims. The statement does not show that one hundred dollars’ worth of work was done each year, as required by the act of 1872; but this defect in the evidence is not referred to in the specifications.
The defendants gave evidence tending to show a valid *542location in 1880, the recording of the claim as required by…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Belk v. MeagherSupreme Court of the United States · 1881
- Golden Fleece G. & S. M. Co. v. Cable Consolidated G. & S. M. Co.Nevada Supreme Court · 1877
- Rose v. Richmond Mining Co.Nevada Supreme Court · 1882
- Table Mountain Tunnel Co. v. StranahanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1862
- Du Prat v. JamesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1884
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Miller v. ChrismanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1903
- Cosmos Exploration Co. v. Gray Eagle Oil Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1901
- Olive Land & Development Co. v. OlmsteadU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern California · 1900
- Consolidated Mut. Oil Co. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1917
- Cook v. KlonosCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1908
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.