Legal Opinion

Howeth v. Sullenger

California Supreme Court

Decided July 28, 1896No. S. F. No. 102PublishedCited by 12 opinions

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Napa County. E. D. Ham, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the Court

Haynes, C.

The defendants commenced proceedings under the mining laws of the United States to obtain a patent for the “White Rock Deposit” mining claim. The plaintiff in due time filed an adverse claim in the United States land-office, claiming the same ground under an alleged location thereof, and this action was brought to determine the rights of the parties to the ground in controversy. The cause was tried by the court without a jury; findings were filed, from which, as a conclusion of law, the court found that neither party was entitled to the premises, and dismissed the action, each party…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. People v. ReedCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
  2. Gleeson v. Martin White Mining Co.Nevada Supreme Court · 1878
  3. North Noonday Mining Co. v. Orient Mining Co.United States Circuit Court · 1880
  4. Smith v. AckerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1877
  5. Geer v. SibleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Blood Relatives of Hill v. Blood Relatives of HillCalifornia Supreme Court · 1914
  2. People v. McCueCalifornia Supreme Court · 1907
  3. Dobbins v. Economic Gas Co.California Supreme Court · 1920
  4. Kern Oil Co. v. CrawfordCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
  5. McPherson v. JuliusSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1903

7 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