Downing v. Rademacher
California Supreme Court
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtTemple, J.
—This appeal is taken by defendants Rademacher and Osmont from a decree quieting the title of plaintiff to thirty-two sixtieths and of defendant Middlecoff to eight sixtieths of a certain mining claim.
Rademacher was, on the eleventh day of January, 1897, the owner of a certain mine in the Randsburg district, in this state. On that day he conveyed an undivided two-thirds interest in the mine to the plaintiff, and contemporaneously with the execution of the deed, and as the sole consideration for the conveyance, Downing delivered to Rademacher his agreement in writing. It was an agreement inter…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Lawrence v. GayettyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
- Richter v. RichterIndiana Supreme Court · 1887
- Stilwell v. KnapperIndiana Supreme Court · 1880
- McCord v. Oakland Quicksilver Mining Co.California Supreme Court · 1883
- Manning v. FrazierIllinois Supreme Court · 1880
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- J. Bryant Kasey and Maryann Kasey v. Molybdenum Corporation of America, a CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1964
- Alder v. DrudisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1947
- Lavely v. NonemakerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1931
- Becker v. SchwerdtleCalifornia Supreme Court · 1903
- Shaw v. CaldwellCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1911
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.