Low v. McCallan
California Supreme Court
Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Butte County granting a new trial. The facts appear sufficiently in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtMyrick, J.
J. First. When the defendants’ motion for a new trial came on for hearing in the court below, the court permitted the defendants (respondents here) to amend their statement by adding and inserting the words “ or predecessors ” after the word “ grantors,” in specification 1. We do not see that any injury resulted to the plaintiffs.
Second. It was material, whether the land between the ditch of plaintiffs and the building of the defendant McCallan had ever been located as a portion of a mining claim, and if so located, whether an abandonment had occurred. The court granted the new trial on the…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Swett v. GrayCalifornia Supreme Court · 1903
- Tucker v. TuckerNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1972
- Alameda Macadamizing Co. v. WilliamsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886
- Richardson v. City of EurekaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1892
- Pearson v. CreedCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.