Street v. Hazzard
California Court of Appeal
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the County of Plumas and from an order denying a new trial. J. 0. Honour, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtBurnett, J.
It was stipulated at the trial that all of the allegations of the complaint and all the affirmative allegations of appellant’s answer were true. The facts thus agreed upon are as follows: The Bushman Mining Company is a California corporation. Appellant, Elizabeth M. Hazzard, is the owner or reputed owner of a certain mining claim described in the complaint, and, on the seventh day of April, 1910, she entered into a certain agreement in writing with one Henry Adams by virtue of which he secured a working bond upon said premises with an option to purchase the same. On October 7, 1911, said…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Stockton Combine Harvester & Agricultural Works v. Glen's Falls Co.California Supreme Court · 1893
- White v. WhiteCalifornia Supreme Court · 1900
- Spinney v. GriffithCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
- Barry v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
- Ross v. RossSupreme Court of Missouri · 1884
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Pasqualetti v. HilsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1919
- In Re FergusonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1954
- Albuquerque Lumber Co. v. Montevista Co.New Mexico Supreme Court · 1934
- Leoni v. QuinnCalifornia Supreme Court · 1922