Maginness

Granite Gold Mining Co. v. Maginness

Good Law
118 Cal. 131·1897 Cal. LEXIS 746·50 P. 269
Supreme Court of CaliforniaSeptember 10, 1897Sac. No. 281California2,806 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Searls, J.

Action of ejectment to recover á mining claim situate in Smith’s Flat mining district, county of El Dorado, state of California.

Defendant S. II. Maginness answered separately and filed a cross-complaint. Plaintiff had judgment for an undivided one-half (⅞) of the demanded premises. Defendant Maginness appeals from the judgment.

Plaintiff is a mining corporation, organized under the laws of the state of California on the nineteenth day of June, 1894, and having its principal place of business at Sacramento in said state.

The objects of the corporation, as specified in its articles, are declared to be, "to buy, own, hold, construct, lease, bond, mortgage, and hypothecate mines and mining claims and mining property of every kind, .... and generally to carry on the business of mining in all its branches,” etc.

*133 At tbe trial, plaintiff, after introducing in evidence its articles of incorporation, and for tbe purpose of making its case, offered in evidence certain portions of tbe answer of defendant .Maginness setting up an equitable defense, inwbicb answer said defendant averred that title to the ground described in tbe complaint at a time therein specified was vested in one…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.