Hart v. Plum
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the Fifteenth District. The Oroville Mining Co. a corporation organized under the general laws of the State, was the owner of a mining claim in the bed of Feather River. In October, 1856, the company contracted with plaintiff, Hart, to construct a flume to carry away the water of the river so as to leave the bed dry. This flume was essential to the working of the claims in the bed of the river.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Fifteenth District. The Oroville Mining Co. a corporation organized under the general laws of the State, was the owner of a mining claim in the bed of Feather River. In October, 1856, the company contracted with plaintiff, Hart, to construct a flume to carry away the water of the river so as to leave the bed dry. This flume was essential to the working of the claims in the bed of the river. The flume was to be constructed during the mining season of 1857, and the company were to pay Hart §110,000, in sums proportioned to the work done, as it progressed. At the date of the…
1Opinion of the Court
On the motion to dismiss the appeal, the following opinion jyas delivered by Terry, C. J.—Baldwin, J. concurring:
In all cases appealed the statute requires that “ the Appellant shall furnish the Court with a copy of the notice of appeal, the judgment roll, and the statement, if there be one.” (Pr. Act. Sec. *153846.) The record in this case contains no copy of the pleadings, and therefore docs not meet the requirements of the statute.
Appeal dismissed.
2Cited by13 opinions
- State ex rel. Miller v. BuchananWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1884
- Miller v. County of KernCalifornia Supreme Court · 1907
- Cross v. City of MilwaukeeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1865
- People v. Eureka Lake & Yuba Canal Co.California Supreme Court · 1874
- Board of Education v. ShepherdSupreme Court of Kansas · 1913
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.