McCoy v. Byrd
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the county of Tulare. The action was brought upon a contest originating in the State land office, concerning the rights of the parties to purchase a tract of swamp and overflowed land, and which was referred by the register of that office to the Superior Court for determination, under the provisions of section 3414 of the Political Code.
Read the full summary
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the county of Tulare. The action was brought upon a contest originating in the State land office, concerning the rights of the parties to purchase a tract of swamp and overflowed land, and which was referred by the register of that office to the Superior Court for determination, under the provisions of section 3414 of the Political Code. The plaintiff set out in his complaint the terms of the affidavit made and filed by him upon his application to purchase, which failed to state whether there were or were not settlers upon the land. A demurrer…
1Opinion of the CourtRoss, J.
It is well settled that an applicant seeking to purchase land from the State must set out in his affidavit the facts required by the statute to be stated therein. (Botsford v. Howell, 52 Cal. 158; Hildebrand v. Stewart, 41 Cal. 387; Woods v. Sawtelle, 46 Cal. 389.) The statute under which the plaintiff’s application is made (Pol. Code, § 3443) requires the affiant to state, among other things, that he knows the land applied for and the exterior bounds thereof, and knows, of his own knowledge, that there are no settlers thereon; or, if there are, that the land has been segregated more than six…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Woods v. SawtelleCalifornia Supreme Court · 1873
- Hildebrand v. StewartCalifornia Supreme Court · 1871
- Botsford v. HowellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1877
3Cited by1 opinion
- McKenzie v. BrandonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886