Legal Opinion

Tweedy v. Parsons

California Supreme Court

Decided February 27, 1933No. Docket No. Sac. 4601PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtThompson, J.

Plaintiffs commenced this action to establish their right to the possession of certain placer mining ground then in the actual possession of the defendants and to enjoin defendants from interfering with plaintiffs’ use and occupation thereof. The judgment decreed that plaintiffs had no right, title or interest in the real property; that the injunction pendente lite theretofore issued be dissolved and that defendants and cross-complainants Fisher, Wheeler and Sandsbury, who were actually working the property until forced to desist by the injunction, recover $1,000 damages. The plaintiffs…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Belk v. MeagherSupreme Court of the United States · 1881
  2. Pool v. ButlerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1903
  3. Miller v. ChrismanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1903
  4. Du Prat v. JamesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1884
  5. Little Sespe Consolidated Oil Co. v. BacigalupiCalifornia Supreme Court · 1914

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Smith v. Cap Concrete, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1982
  2. Brown v. MurphyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1939
  3. Winslow v. BurnsNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1943
  4. Mandel v. Great Lakes Oil Etc. Co.California Court of Appeal · 1957

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

Powered by the Exa API