Legal Opinion

Godfrey v. Faust

South Dakota Supreme Court

Decided November 29, 1905PublishedCited by 3 opinions

On rehearing.

1Opinion of the CourtFuller, P. J.

Our former decision of this appeal, now before us on rehearing, is reported in 18 S. D. 567, 101 N. W. 718, where the facts are fully stated, and it is held, upon conflicting evidence, and independently of certain testimony claimed to be incompetent and erroneously admitted, that the trial court was justified in finding that during the year 1900 the required amount of assess*204ment work had been done on or for the benefit of the Dave and Faust lodes, the. two unpatented mining claims in controversy. With our conclusion that all necessary work may be done by one having a contract with the locator…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Smelting Co. v. KempSupreme Court of the United States · 1882
  2. Book v. Justice Min. Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Nevada · 1893
  3. McGarrity v. ByingtonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1859
  4. Mount Diablo Mill & Mining Co. v. CallisonU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Nevada · 1879
  5. Doherty v. MorrisSupreme Court of Colorado · 1891

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. In re McClellan's EstateSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1906
  2. New Mercur Mining Co. v. South Mercur Mining Co.Utah Supreme Court · 1942
  3. Hawgood v. EmerySouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1909

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API