Partridge v. McKinney (1859) · DecisionDepot

Partridge v. McKinney

Name: California Superior Court Tentative Rulings
Creator: DecisionDepot
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

California Supreme Court Jul 1, 1859Published

Before: Baldwin

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the previous opinion rendered by Justice Burnett while explicitly reserving judgment on the necessity of recording mining claims.

Issues

Whether the previous opinion rendered by Justice Burnett is correct regarding the proposition before the Court.
Whether it is necessary to express an opinion on the necessity of recording mining claims.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“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.”

Synopsis

The question as to the necessity of recording mining claims reserved.

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

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief