Carr v. Quigley
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment for the plaintiff, and an order denying a new trial, in the Third District Court, County of Alameda. McKee, J.
1Opinion of the Court
The Coubt:
Ejectment. Plaintiff deraigned from the Western Pacific Railroad Company. Defendant offered to prove that the lands in controversy were, at the time when the lands along the line of the road were withdrawn from pre-emption, private entry and sale, within the limits of a Mexican grant then sub judice, and therefore within a “ Government reservation,” as that expression is used in the Act of Congress of 1864. (13 Stats. 358.) We think the Court below erred in sustaining the objection to this proof. If the land was within a reservation, it did not pass by the patent to the railroad…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Newhall v. SangerSupreme Court of the United States · 1876
- Doll v. MeadorCalifornia Supreme Court · 1860
- McLaughlin v. PowellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1875
3Cited by7 opinions
- Williams v. City of San Pedro Etc. Co.California Supreme Court · 1908
- Gale v. BestCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
- Southern Pacific Railroad v. GarciaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1884
- Carr v. QuigleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
- Carr v. QuigleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.