Legal Opinion

Silvester v. Coe Quartz Mine Co.

California Supreme Court

Decided September 13, 1889No. 13109PublishedCited by 29 opinions

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 of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtWorks, J.

This action was brought by three plaintiffs, jointly, to foreclose their separate material-men’s liens on the mining claim of the defendant for materials furnished for repairs on said claim. The work on the mining property was done by a contractor, who was to erect hydraulic-power hoisting-works and pumping-works building, gallows-frame and track, lay down a water-pipe to supply water to the mine, and to pump out the mine to the third level. There was but one contract to do all of the work named for a certain number of the shares of stock of the company, and the contract was not recorded.

The…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Helm v. ChapmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1885

3Cited by29 opinions

  1. Halbert's Lumber, Inc. v. Lucky Stores, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1992
  2. Missoula Mercantile Co. v. O'DonnellMontana Supreme Court · 1900
  3. Wilson v. NugentCalifornia Supreme Court · 1899
  4. Ensele v. JolleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1922
  5. Bewick v. MuirCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890

24 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