Legal Opinion
Favot v. Kingsbury
California Court of Appeal
Decided April 15, 1929No. Docket No. 3671PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
JAMISON, J., pro tem.
This appeal is by W. S. Kings-bury alone, is brought up on the judgment-roll and the facts found by the trial court are admitted to be true.
That court found that on June 14, 1880, the plat of survey of section 16 in township 1 south, range 15 east, Tuolumne County, California, containing the premises in controversy was accepted by the department of the interior, and that at that date no mining claims were shown to be in said section, and that same was not returned by the United States deputy mineral surveyor as being mineral in character, and that on said date title to…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- United States v. SweetSupreme Court of the United States · 1918
- Mining Co. v. Consolidated Mining Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1880
- James v. Oakland Traction Co.California Court of Appeal · 1909
- Michigan Trust Co. v. BronsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1925
- Saunders v. La Purisima Gold Mining Co.California Supreme Court · 1899
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Taliaferro v. SalyerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1958
- Brown v. LuddyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1932
- Olson v. CoryCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1982
- Hardesty v. State Mining & Geology Bd., California Court of Appeal, 5th District2017
- Hardesty v. State Mining and Geology BoardCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2017
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.