Legal Opinion

Russell v. Golden Rule Mining Co.

Arizona Supreme Court

Decided June 4, 1945No. Civil No. 4689PublishedCited by 18 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMorgan, J.

The appellee corporation was plaintiff below, and appellants were defendants. The parties will be designated as plaintiff and defendants. The construction of various contracts involving mining claims is required for a determination of the issues raised on this appeal. A pertinent statement of the facts and a reference to the agreements in the order of their execution are essential to a clear appreciation of the questions which have been presented to us.

The defendants owned three lode mining claims located in Maricopa County, known as the Little Daisy Group, consisting of Little Daisy Nos. 1,…

2Cases cited37 opinions

  1. Treadway v. Western Cotton Oil & Ginning Co.Arizona Supreme Court · 1932
  2. Clarno v. GraysonOregon Supreme Court · 1896
  3. Munger v. BoardmanArizona Supreme Court · 1939
  4. White v. MooreArizona Supreme Court · 1935
  5. McClintock & Irvine Co. v. Ætna Explosives Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1918

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

3Cited by18 opinions

  1. Estate of Franklin v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1975
  2. Employer's Liability Assurance Corporation v. LuntArizona Supreme Court · 1957
  3. State Board of Barber Examiners v. WalkerArizona Supreme Court · 1948
  4. Grounds v. LaweArizona Supreme Court · 1948
  5. Valley National Bank v. ShumwayArizona Supreme Court · 1945

13 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