Hankins v. Helms
This text of 95 P. 1133 (Hankins v. Helms) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Arizona Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
This is a suit thought by Frank P. Helms and others against Daniel Hankins and E. G. Riley to quiet title to a mining claim to support an adverse claim filed in the land office against an application for patent. From a judgment in favor of plaintiffs, defendants have appealed. The' only question which we may consider upon the record, as it is before us, is as to the necessity in an adverse suit of proof of citizenship of the successful party. Upon this point the members of the court sitting are equally divided in opinion. No useful purpose will be served by an expression of the reasons for the opinions entertained. The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
95 P. 1133, 12 Ariz. 104, 1908 Ariz. LEXIS 103, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hankins-v-helms-ariz-1908.