Legal Opinion
Mayer v. Lane
New Mexico Supreme Court
Decided November 9, 1927No. 3080PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
BICKLEY, J.
This is an action by a cotenant of mining property, against his cotenants, for damages for injury to said property, resulting from failure of defendants to work said mining property in a safe, prudent, and careful manner, which resulted in the cave-in and destruction of the main mining shaft of said property. It is alleged:
“That in the month of May, A. D. 1920, said mam working shaft on said North Homestake mine caved in and was entirely destroyed, as plaintiff was informed and believes; and said cave-in of said mine shaft commenced about 200 feet below the…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Wisconsin Lumber Co. v. Greene & Western Telephone Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1904
- Anderson v. Inter-River Drainage & Levee DistrictSupreme Court of Missouri · 1925
- Zosel v. KohrsMontana Supreme Court · 1925
- Wright v. State Ex Rel. WalcottSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1924
- First National Bank v. GrowMontana Supreme Court · 1920
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Cox v. City of AlbuquerqueNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1949
- Valdez v. Mountain Bell Telephone Co.New Mexico Court of Appeals · 1988
- Catron v. Gallup Fire Brick Co.New Mexico Supreme Court · 1929
- Maestas v. Alameda Cattle Co.New Mexico Supreme Court · 1932
- State v. JohnsonNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1955
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.