Legal Opinion

Matteson v. Equitable Mining & Milling Co.

California Supreme Court

Decided June 2, 1904No. Sac. No. 1160PublishedCited by 15 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtBeatty, C. J.

Plaintiff's assignor erected on the mine of defendant a ten-stamp quartz-mill, with various appurtenances, under a written contract, by which the defendant agreed to pay for the mill, etc., the sum of ten thousand dollars in stated installments. The contract included the following stipulation: “It is further agreed by the said party of the second part [the defendant] that the said mill, concentrators, water-wheels, pipe-line and all other structures built by the parties of the first part under the terms of this contract shall be considered as and shall be personal property, whether attached…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Parke & Lacy Co. v. White River Lumber Co.California Supreme Court · 1894

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. Silverstin v. Kohler & ChaseCalifornia Supreme Court · 1919
  2. Massey-Ferguson Credit Corp. v. CasaulongCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1976
  3. B.K.K. Co. v. SchultzCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1970
  4. Universal Credit Co. v. TaylorSupreme Court of Virginia · 1935
  5. General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. BrownCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1934

10 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