Partridge v. McKinney

California Supreme Court

Partridge v. McKinney

13 Cal. 158

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Partridge v. McKinney. Read the opinion of the Court — 10 Cal. 181 →

California Supreme Court·Decided July 1, 1859·Published

Opinion

On a rehearing, the following opinion was delivered by Baldwin, J

Terry, C. J. concurring:

In this ease a rehearing was granted.' An opinion was rendered by Mr. Justice Burnett, and concurred in. We think, on a re-examination, that this opinion is correct on the proposition before the Court; but that it is not necessary to express any opinion as to the necessity of recording mining claims. That question is reserved. With this qualification, we adopt that opinion, and the result of it, as the judgment of the Court.

Ordered accordingly.

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

On a rehearing, the following opinion was delivered by Baldwin, J

Terry, C. J. concurring:

In this ease a rehearing was granted.' An opinion was rendered by Mr. Justice Burnett, and concurred in. We think, on a re-examination, that this opinion is correct on the proposition before the Court; but that it is not necessary to express any opinion as to the necessity of recording mining claims. That question is reserved. With this qualification, we adopt that opinion, and the result of it, as the judgment of the Court.

Ordered accordingly.

Partridge v. McKinney, 13 Cal. 158 (Cal. 1859).

Pincite

13 Cal. 158 (Partridge v. McKinney) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.