Legal Opinion

Merced Oil Mining Co. v. Patterson

California Supreme Court

Decided May 20, 1908No. S.F. No. 4640PublishedCited by 12 opinions

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtHenshaw, J.

In May, 1899, C. C. Spinks and his seven associates entered upon and located under the Placer Mining Laws one hundred and sixty acres of vacant, unoccupied mineral lands of the United States. The mineral for which the lands were thought to be valuable was oil. The boundaries of the consolidated claim were marked and the locators proceeded with the work of development to make an oil discovery. On the twenty-seventh day of January, 1900, and before any discovery of oil had been made by the associates, they conveyed a certain forty acres of their one hundred and sixty acres to the Merced Oil…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Pool v. ButlerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1903
  2. Miller v. ChrismanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1903
  3. Weed v. SnookCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Smith v. Union Oil Co. of Cal.California Supreme Court · 1913
  2. United States Ex Rel. United States Borax Co. v. IckesCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1938
  3. United States v. HurstDistrict Court, D. Wyoming · 1924
  4. Adams v. BenedictNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1958
  5. Merced Oil Mining Co. v. PattersonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1912

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

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

Powered by the Exa API