Niagara Consol. Gold Mining Co. v. Bunker Hill Consol. Mining Co.

6 Citing cases

  1. Fulkerson v. Chisna Mining & Imp Co.

    122 F. 782 (9th Cir. 1903)   Cited 6 times

    ' The case of the Niagara Consolidated Gold Mining Company v. The Bunker Hill Consolidated Gold Mining Company, 59 Cal. 612, was an action to quiet title to certain mining ground in which the plaintiff recovered judgment. The case was taken to the Supreme Court on three bills of exceptions, and in the course of its opinion the court said:

  2. Reid v. Robrecht

    102 Cal. 520 (Cal. 1894)   Cited 1 times

    As the court finds that the plaintiff was in possession of the premises at the time of the commencement of this action the decree must be affirmed, for his mere possession is sufficient to enable him to maintain an action to quiet title as against the trespasser, or one who establishes no title in himself. (McGovern v. Mowry , 91 Cal. 383; Kockemann v. Bickel , 92 Cal. 665; Brandt v. Wheaton , 52 Cal. 430, 433; McCormack v. Silsby , 82 Cal. 72; Orr v. Stewart , 67 Cal. 275, 277; Wilson v. Madison , 55 Cal. 5; Code Civ. Proc., subd. 11, sec. 1963; Civ. Code, sec. 1006; King v. Gotz , 70 Cal. 236, 240; Pierce v. Stuart , 45 Cal. 280; Niagara Con. G. M. Co. v. Bunker Hill etc. Co ., 59 Cal. 612; Pierce v. Felter , 53 Cal. 18; Pralus v. Pacific etc. M. Co ., 35 Cal. 30, 34.)          JUDGES: In Bank. Harrison, J., being disqualified, did not participate in the decision.

  3. McGovern v. Mowry

    91 Cal. 383 (Cal. 1891)   Cited 15 times
    In McGovern v. Mowry, 91 Cal. 383, [27 P. 746], an action to quiet title, it was held, after quoting section 1006 of the Civil Code, that actual occupancy and possession of the premises at the time of the commencement of the action is sufficient evidence of ownership as against "one who, like defendant, never had any title, but who claimed to have title to the premises."

    (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 1963; Civ. Code, sec. 1006; King v. Gotz , 70 Cal. 240. See also Pierce v. Stuart , 45 Cal. 280; Niagara Cons. G. M. Co. v. Bunker Hill Cons. Mining Co ., 59 Cal. 612; Pierce v. Felter , 53 Cal. 18; Pralus v. Pacific G. & S. M. Co ., 35 Cal. 34; Smith v. Brannan , 13 Cal. 114; Crook v. Forsyth , 30 Cal. 662; Horn v. Jones , 28 Cal. 203.)          JUDGES: Sharpstein, J. De Haven, J., and Harrison, J., concurred.

  4. Winter v. McMillan

    87 Cal. 256 (Cal. 1890)   Cited 34 times
    In Winter v. McMillan, 87 Cal. 264, [22 Am. St. Rep. 243, 25 P. 407], the supreme court, in passing upon the question before us here, said: "Appellants contend that the demurrer to the cross-complaint ought to have been sustained; that a cross-complaint is improper in actions of this kind.

    (Civ. Code, sec. 438, 442; Wilson v. Madison , 55 Cal. 8; Germania S. Soc'y v. Wagner , 61 Cal. 349; Miller v. Luco , 80 Cal. 261.) New parties cannot be introduced by cross-complaint. (Harrison v. McCormick , 69 Cal. 616; Niagara Mining Co. v. Bunker Hill Mining Co ., 59 Cal. 612; Shields v. Barrow, 17 How. 417; Story's Eq. Pl., sec. 389; Daniell's Chancery Practice, 1647.) The demurrer to the cross-complaint should have been sustained.

  5. Kitts v. Austin

    83 Cal. 167 (Cal. 1890)   Cited 12 times
    In Kitts v. Austin, 83 Cal. 167, 172, the plaintiff, in an action to quiet title, was in possession of a portion of the land.

    And the attempt to show that the land was in the possession of a third person, to say nothing of its inconsistency with his own claim, could not aid him. It could not avail him in any way, unless he could show some connection on his part with whatever right or title Luey may have had. (Niagara M. Co. v. Bunker Hill M. Co ., 59 Cal. 612; Wilson v. Madison , 55 Cal. 5; Funk v. Sterrett , 59 Cal. 613.) All of these cases were to quiet title to land.

  6. Dondero v. O'Hara

    3 Cal.App. 633 (Cal. Ct. App. 1906)   Cited 2 times

    " Carlton vs. Townsend, 28 Cal. 219-224. " Niagara M. Co. vs. Bunker Hill M. Co., 59 Cal. 612. " Foot vs. Murphy, 72 Cal. 104, [13 P. 163].