Bissell v. Henshaw
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of California
At law. This was an action [of ejectment] to recover a league of land. It was tried by the court without a jury. The following is a summary of the facts condensed from the findings filed by the court: The plaintiff [George B. Bissell] claimed title under a Mexican grant of five leagues of land, made to Charles William Flugge, which was duly presented to the board of land commissioners, finally confirmed and patented to Thomas O. Larkin.
Read the full summary
At law. This was an action [of ejectment] to recover a league of land. It was tried by the court without a jury. The following is a summary of the facts condensed from the findings filed by the court: The plaintiff [George B. Bissell] claimed title under a Mexican grant of five leagues of land, made to Charles William Flugge, which was duly presented to the board of land commissioners, finally confirmed and patented to Thomas O. Larkin. The land granted is called the Boga Rancho. The defendants [J. M. Henskaw and others] also claimed title under a Mexican grant to Dionisio and Max-imo…
1Opinion of the Court
SAWYER, Circuit Judge.
The question is, which grant takes the land? Some questions raised by counsel, not wholly depending upon the several grants and patents, will be first considered; and firstly, it is insisted that the action is barred by the statute of limitations.
If I understand the argument of counsel, it is claimed that section 7, and not section 6, of the statute of limitations, as amended in 1S55 (Stat. 1S55, p. 109, §§ 1 and 2), before its repeal, applied to the case; that section 6 of the act of 1863, carries out the same idea in its second proviso (Stat. 1863, p. 327, § 6); and…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Boggs v. Merced Mining Co.California Supreme Court · 1859
- Davis v. DavisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1864
- Leese v. ClarkCalifornia Supreme Court · 1862
- Teschemacher v. ThompsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1861
- Stark v. BarrettCalifornia Supreme Court · 1860
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Coburn v. San Mateo CountyU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern California · 1896
- Ely Real Estate & Investment Co. v. WattsCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1920
- The De SmetU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Louisiana · 1881