Partridge v. McKinney

California Supreme Court

Partridge v. McKinney

13 Cal. 158

DecidedJuly 1, 1859

StatusPublished

This text of 13 Cal. 158 (Partridge v. McKinney) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

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

Pincite

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

13 Cal. 158, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/partridge-v-mckinney-cal-1859.