Legal Opinion

Russell v. Brosseau

California Supreme Court

Decided September 17, 1884No. 8,847PublishedCited by 7 opinions

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the county of Sierra, and from an order refusing a new trial The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtMorrison, C. J.

In the opening brief of appellants may be found the following correct statement of the case we ar.e considering:—

“This action was brought under section 738 of the Code of Civil Procedure to determine the adverse claim of appellants to one undivided half of a mining claim called the ' Gray Eagle Claim/ and five eighths (§) of another claim called the 'Paris Mountain Claim, adjoining the Gray Eagle Claim.’
“In his complaint the respondent (plaintiff in the court below) alleged that he was the owner of and in possession of said undivided parts of said mining claims, and 'that the *606defendants and…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Bell v. Bed Rock Tunnel & Mining Co.California Supreme Court · 1868
  2. Du Prat v. JamesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1884
  3. Funk v. SterrettCalifornia Supreme Court · 1881
  4. Carney v. Arizona Gold Mining Co.California Supreme Court · 1884

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Goodale v. MurraySupreme Court of Iowa · 1940
  2. Waechter v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co.California Court of Appeal · 1909
  3. Kramer v. Gladding, McBean & Co.California Court of Appeal · 1938
  4. Morgan v. TillottsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1887
  5. Wright v. KillianCalifornia Supreme Court · 1901

2 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