Fairbanks v. Lampkin
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Mendocino County. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. A party desiring to purchase state land must strictly conform to the statute under which his application is made, and establish the facts stated in his affidavit to purchase the land, or his application is invalid. (Hildebrand v. Stewart, 41 Cal. 387; Woods v. Sawtelle, 46 Cal. 389; Pol.
Read the full summary
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Mendocino County. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. A party desiring to purchase state land must strictly conform to the statute under which his application is made, and establish the facts stated in his affidavit to purchase the land, or his application is invalid. (Hildebrand v. Stewart, 41 Cal. 387; Woods v. Sawtelle, 46 Cal. 389; Pol. Code, sec. 3500.) The plaintiff’s affidavit to purchase this land in contest contained a false statement as to eighty acres of the two hundred and forty acres sought to be purchased by him, and…
1Opinion of the Court
Garoutte, J.—
This is an action brought to determine a contest arising in the office of the surveyor general of the state of California as to the right of the respondent Fairbanks, or the appellant Lampkin, to purchase state school lands described as follows: The southeast one-fourth and east one-half of southwest one-fourth of section 16, township 11 north, range 15 west, Mount Diablo meridian. The cause was tried and judgment rendered, which decreed that the plaintiff was entitled to purchase from the state of California the east one-half of southeast one-fourth, the southwest one-fourth of…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Pardee v. SchanzlinCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1906