Gardiner v. Schmaelzle
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court, Sixth Judicial District, County of Sacramento. " Ejectment for the lot in the- city of Sacramento-described in the opinion.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court, Sixth Judicial District, County of Sacramento. " Ejectment for the lot in the- city of Sacramento-described in the opinion. The plaintiff claimed title under John A. Sutter, to whom the demanded premises and other lands were granted by the Mexican Government in 1841. The grant to Sutter was confirmed by the United States in June, 1865, a patent was issued on the 20th day of June, 1866. This action was commenced in June, 1869. The defendant set up the Statute of Limitations in his answer. The plaintiff, on the trial, deraigned title from Sutter, through the…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court, Wallace, C. J.:
When the record of the letter of attorney from Sutter to Peachy was offered in evidence, authorizing, or purporting to authorize, the latter to make sale of the lot unsold in the squares lying between N and 0 streets, no specific objection was made that the plaintiff had not shown that the lot No. 4, in controversy, and which lies in one of the squares between those streets was unsold ; even if that objection had been taken in form, it would not have availed the defendant at that stage of the proceedings, inasmuch as in any view the letter of attorney was…
2Cited by14 opinions
- Emeric v. AlvaradoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1884
- First National Bank v. DutcherSupreme Court of Iowa · 1905
- Moore v. MoffattCalifornia Supreme Court · 1922
- Shain v. ForbesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
- Horn v. ReitlerSupreme Court of Colorado · 1890
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.