Hankins v. Helms

95 P. 1133, 12 Ariz. 104, 1908 Ariz. LEXIS 103
Arizona Supreme Court·Decided March 27, 1908·No. Civil No. 1047·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM. —

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.

DOAN, J., not sitting.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Hankins v. Helms, 95 P. 1133, 12 Ariz. 104, 1908 Ariz. LEXIS 103 (Ark. 1908).

95 P. 1133 (Hankins v. Helms) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Belfer v. Lewis
281 P.2d 794 (Arizona Supreme Court, 1955)
City of Phoenix v. Hughes
286 P. 191 (Arizona Supreme Court, 1930)