Goss v. Golinsky
California Court of Appeal
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Shasta County, and from an order denying a motion for a new trial. Charles M. Head, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtBurnett, J.
The action is to quiet title and to restrain defendants from mining upon land claimed by plaintiff. The property involved lies in township 34 N., R. 5 W., M. D. M., and the only question in controversy is whether the mines in dispute are located in section 28 or section 33 of said township. The north line of said section 33 is the south line of said section 28. As admitted by both parties, the issue is to be determined by the solution of the question whether or not the northwest corner of section 33 is a lost corner. It is so asserted by respondents, and the findings and judgment are based…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Jones v. AndrewsTexas Supreme Court · 1888
- Hostetter v. Los Angeles Terminal Railway Co.California Supreme Court · 1895
- Stangair v. RoadsWashington Supreme Court · 1906
- Mendenhall v. ParisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
3Cited by5 opinions
- Swarzwald v. CooleyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1940
- Luginbuhl v. HammondCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1960
- Garnsey v. PostonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1942
- Hanes v. Hollow Tree Lumber Co.California Court of Appeal · 1961
- Moranda v. MapesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1929