Sutton v. Fassett
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court, Sixth Judicial District, County of Sacramento. Ejectment to recover the west half of the northwest quarter of section one, and the east ten rods of the east half of the northeast quarter of section two, all township number seven north, range number four east, Mount Diablo meridian, lying in the county of Sacramento.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court, Sixth Judicial District, County of Sacramento. Ejectment to recover the west half of the northwest quarter of section one, and the east ten rods of the east half of the northeast quarter of section two, all township number seven north, range number four east, Mount Diablo meridian, lying in the county of Sacramento. The land was surveyed and platted by the United States prior to September, 1860. It was listed over to this State by the Commissioner of the General Land Office, on the 25th day of June, 1872, under the act of Congress of July 23, 1866, to quiet…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court, Rhodes, J.:
The plaintiff claims title to the premises in controversy under a patent issued by the United States, May 20, 1873; and the defendant claims title under a patent issued by this State, as for swamp and overflowed land, March 25, 1867. If the title to the land vested in the State by virtue of the act of Congress of September 28, 1850 — known as the Arkansas Act—or by operation of the act of Congress of July 23, 1866 (14 U. S. Stats. at Large, 218), and proceedings had under that act, then the plaintiff’s patent was void; but if the title did not so vest in the State,…
2Cited by10 opinions
- Wright v. RoseberrySupreme Court of the United States · 1887
- Foss v. JohnstoneCalifornia Supreme Court · 1910
- Cucamonga Fruit-Land Co. v. MoirCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
- Southern Development Co. v. EndersenDistrict Court, D. Nevada · 1912
- Wright v. RoseberryCalifornia Supreme Court · 1883
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.