Gilson Quartz Mining Co. v. Gilson
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court, Fifth Judicial District, Tuolumne County. The plaintiff obtained a judgment against the defendants in September, 1866, for $7,249.59, and that the defendants convey to the plaintiff a certain quartz mill and mine. The plaintiff was the owner of a quartz mill and mine near Soulsbyville, Tuolumne County, known as the Gilson Quartz Mining- Company’s property.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court, Fifth Judicial District, Tuolumne County. The plaintiff obtained a judgment against the defendants in September, 1866, for $7,249.59, and that the defendants convey to the plaintiff a certain quartz mill and mine. The plaintiff was the owner of a quartz mill and mine near Soulsbyville, Tuolumne County, known as the Gilson Quartz Mining- Company’s property. The judgment remaining unpaid, the plaintiff agreed with the defendant, in 1871, to satisfy the judgment if the defendants would pay the plaintiff $2,000 in money, and, as the plaintiff claimed, would find a…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court:
1. The plaintiff having been nonsuited at the trial on July 11th, the “findings of fact and conclusions of law,” filed on the twenty-sixth of July, are without precedent in point of practice.
2. The Court manifestly erred in nonsuiting the plaintiff, who was not bound to return to the defendants the moneys received of them in part satisfaction of the judgment, for the plaintiff is entitled to retain these moneys in any aspect of the case.
*602Nor does it concern the defendants what disposition has been made of the Kenfield stock. If it had been returned to Kenfield, it would not have…
2Cited by13 opinions
- Sime v. MaloufCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1949
- Taylor v. HopperCalifornia Supreme Court · 1929
- Campbell v. BirchCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942
- Richards v. FraserCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
- M. G. Chamberlain & Co. v. SimpsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1959
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.