Figg v. Handley
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court, Fifth Judicial District, County of San Joaquin. Ejectment to recover possession of a portion of section sixteen, township four north, range six, Mount Diablo base and meridian. The plaintiff recovered judgment, and the defendant appealed. The other facts are stated in the opinion.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court, Fifth Judicial District, County of San Joaquin. Ejectment to recover possession of a portion of section sixteen, township four north, range six, Mount Diablo base and meridian. The plaintiff recovered judgment, and the defendant appealed. The other facts are stated in the opinion. Byers & Elliott, for the Appellant, argued that the plaintiff had no such title as would enable him to invoke the rule that defendant must be in privity with the title of the United States to enable him to attack the plaintiff’s title, and cited Tyler v. Houghton, 25 Cal. 26; and…
1Opinion of the Court
The appellant, by the record, is “ a mere naked intruder, without title or color of right.” The certificate of purchase issued *245by the United States Land Office is not open to attack by a naked occupant and trespasser. (Code of Civil Procedure, sec. 1925; Doll v. Meador, 16 Cal. 324-31; Rhodes v. Craig, 21 Cal. 419 ; Wilcox v. Jackson, 13 Peters, 498, 516.)
By the Court :
The land in controversy is a portion of a sixteenth section, and the plaintiffs title is founded on certificates of purchase issued by the State in due form. The defense relied upon, as to a portion of the land, is, that prior…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Wilcox v. JacksonSupreme Court of the United States · 1839
- Doll v. MeadorCalifornia Supreme Court · 1860
- Rhodes v. CraigCalifornia Supreme Court · 1863
3Cited by3 opinions
- Williams v. PurcellSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1914
- Conkling v. Pacific Improvement Co.California Supreme Court · 1890
- People v. MainCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1925