Legal Opinion
McLean v. Ladewig
California Court of Appeal
Decided November 5, 1934No. Civ. 5165PublishedCited by 20 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
HELD, J., pro tem.
The amended complaint herein contains two causes of action; the first being the ordinary suit to quiet title, while the second alleges title by adverse possession. The property involved is an unpatented lode mining claim in the county of Mariposa, known as the “Good Luck Mine”, which was located on February 1, 1892, by J. E. McLean, J. L. McLean and S. B. Ferguson. By mesne conveyances, plaintiff has acquired' all the right, title and interest of the original locators in the property. The defendants claim the southerly portion of the Good Luck Mine by the location of the…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Newport v. HattonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1924
- Hammer v. Garfield Mining & Milling Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1889
- Baar v. SmithCalifornia Supreme Court · 1927
- Richardson v. McNultyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1864
- Altoona Quicksilver Mining Co. v. Integral Quicksilver Mining Co.California Supreme Court · 1896
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by20 opinions
- Flynn v. FlynnCalifornia Supreme Court · 1954
- Bartholomew v. StaheliCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1948
- Estrin v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1939
- Independence Placer Mining Co. v. HellmanIdaho Supreme Court · 1941
- Lind v. BakerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1939
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.