Berry v. Cammet
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court of the Third Judicial District, County of Santa Cruz. The plaintiff averred, in substance, in his complaint, that since the 1st day of January, 1868, he had been in possession of the northwest quarter of section eight, township number ten south, range three west, Mount Diablo base and meridian, and that he had valuable improvements thereon, consisting of a dwelling house, etc.; that December 10th, 1869, the official plat of the survey of the…
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court of the Third Judicial District, County of Santa Cruz. The plaintiff averred, in substance, in his complaint, that since the 1st day of January, 1868, he had been in possession of the northwest quarter of section eight, township number ten south, range three west, Mount Diablo base and meridian, and that he had valuable improvements thereon, consisting of a dwelling house, etc.; that December 10th, 1869, the official plat of the survey of the land was filed in the office of the Surveyor General of the United States, and in the land office of the local district;…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court, Rhodes, J.:
The sale of the lands of the State is committed to the executive department of the government; and the judicial department has no jurisdiction of controversies arising between applicants for the purchase of the lands, except in such matters as are expressly provided for by the statute. In order to give a Court jurisdiction of a controversy of that character, the facts conferring jurisdiction must be stated in the complaint. It is not enough that there are contesting claimants for the purchase of the same, lands, but the proceedings required by the statute before the…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Ward v. ClayCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
- Rose v. Richmond Mining Co.Nevada Supreme Court · 1882
- Lane v. PferdnerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1880
- Danielwitz v. TempleCalifornia Supreme Court · 1880