Legal Opinion

United States v. Chanslor-Canfield Midway Oil Co.

District Court, S.D. California

Decided September 10, 1918No. A-39PublishedCited by 5 opinions

In Equity. Suit by the United States against the Chanslor-Canfield Midway Oil Company, the Recovery Oil Company, Fred H. Hall, and others.

1Opinion of the CourtBean, District Judge

(sitting by special assignment). The property in controversy is public mineral land of the United States and within the area of presidential withdrawal order of September 27, 1909. Two principal questions are for decision: First, whether the paper location under which the defendants claim is legal and valid; and, second, whether the defendant oil company was, at the date of withdrawal order, in diligent prosecution of work leading to discovery on the property. I have heretofore had occasion to consider many questions arising under the withdrawal order and legislation with reference thereto.…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. United States v. Midwest Oil Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1915
  2. United States v. Midway Northern Oil Co.District Court, S.D. California · 1916
  3. Consolidated Mut. Oil Co. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1917
  4. United States v. Brookshire Oil Co.District Court, S.D. California · 1917
  5. United States v. North American Oil ConsolidatedDistrict Court, S.D. California · 1917

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Morrow v. Coast Land Co.California Court of Appeal · 1938
  2. Rundle v. Republic Cement CorporationArizona Supreme Court · 1959
  3. Hopper v. ElliottCalifornia Supreme Court · 1937
  4. Rundle v. Republic Cement CorporationArizona Supreme Court · 1959
  5. Rundle v. Republic Cement CorporationArizona Supreme Court · 1959

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

Powered by the Exa API