From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Du Prat v. James

Supreme Court of California
Aug 30, 1882
61 Cal. 361 (Cal. 1882)

Opinion

         Appeal from a judgment for defendants in the Superior Court of the County of Tuolumne. Rooney, J.

         Action to recover possession of mining claim.

         COUNSEL

          J. D. Redmond and Taylor & Haight, for Appellant.

          Street & Street, for Respondents.


         OPINION          In Bank. The Court:

         In their answer the defendants aver that plaintiff " has not complied with Section 5 of the Act of Congress, approved May 10, 1872, entitled an 'Act to promote the development of the mining resources of the United States,' in not performing the labor or making the improvements on said claims as required by said Act." Read in connection with the allegation as to entry and location on the part of defendants, this averment is to be treated as denied by plaintiff. Thus was created a material issue (Morenhaut v. Wilson , 52 Cal. 263), and the Court below failed to find upon it.

         Judgment reversed and cause remanded for a new trial.


Summaries of

Du Prat v. James

Supreme Court of California
Aug 30, 1882
61 Cal. 361 (Cal. 1882)
Case details for

Du Prat v. James

Case Details

Full title:JOSEPH J. DU PRAT v. J. P. JAMES et al.

Court:Supreme Court of California

Date published: Aug 30, 1882

Citations

61 Cal. 361 (Cal. 1882)

Citing Cases

Wharton v. Harlan

COUNSEL:          The motion to set aside the defaults came too late. (Estate of Hudson , 63 Cal. 454; Hill…

Souter v. Maguire

This was sufficient under the circumstances. (Southern Cross Co. v. Europa Co ., 15 Nev. 384; Du Prat…