Big Three Mining & Milling Co. v. Hamilton
California Supreme Court
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. J. W. P. Laird, Wm. Chambers, and William J. Hunsaker, for Appellant.
1Opinion of the CourtSloss, J.
The action was brought to quiet plaintiff’s title to four quartz mining claims, the “Occidental,” the “Rosamond,” the “Kid,” and the “Home No. 1,” together with the “Big Three Millsite.” There is no dispute as to plaintiff’s ownership of the Home No. 1, and all controversies relating to the ownership of the millsite were settled by agreement of the parties before the trial. The questions presented upon this appeal relate entirely to the three claims first mentioned, the Occidental, the Rosamond, and the Kid. As claimed by plaintiff, these three, together with the Home No. 1, ran along an…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Belk v. MeagherSupreme Court of the United States · 1881
- Book v. Justice Min. Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Nevada · 1893
- Unger v. MooneyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1883
- Chambers v. HarringtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1884
- Jackson v. RobySupreme Court of the United States · 1883
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by21 opinions
- Fish v. Los Angeles Dodgers Baseball ClubCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1976
- Hume v. Fresno Irrigation DistrictCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1937
- Smith v. Union Oil Co. of Cal.California Supreme Court · 1913
- Lind v. BakerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1939
- McNulty v. Southern Pacific Co.California Court of Appeal · 1950
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.