Legal Opinion

Pralus v. Jefferson Gold & Silver Mining Co.

California Supreme Court

Decided July 1, 1868PublishedCited by 5 opinions

Appeal from the District Court, Tenth Judicial District, Yuba County. The plaintiffs appealed. The other facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

1Opinion of the Court

By the Court, Crockett, J.:

This is an action founded on section two hundred and fifty-four of the Practice Act, to quiet the plaintiffs’ title to a piece of mining ground in Yuba County. The complaint avers, among other things, that at the commencement of the action the plaintiffs were in the possession of the mining ground in contest. This was a material and traversable allegation, which it was incumbent on' the plaintiffs to prove, if denied. Without that averment the complaint would have been demurrable. (Ritchie v. Dorland, 6 Cal. 33; Curtis v. Sutter, 15 Cal. 259; San Francisco v.…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Curtis v. SutterCalifornia Supreme Court · 1860
  2. Lyle v. RollinsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1864
  3. Rico v. SpenceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1863
  4. City of San Francisco v. BeidemanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1861
  5. Ritchie v. DorlandCalifornia Supreme Court · 1856

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Nev. Cty. & Sacramento Canal Co. v. KiddCalifornia Supreme Court · 1869
  2. Brumley v. FlintCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
  3. Root v. ConlinCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1924
  4. Sepulveda v. HaleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1870
  5. Sepulveda v. SepulvedaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1870

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

Powered by the Exa API