Cunningham v. Crowley
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court, Twentieth Judicial District, County of Santa Cruz. On the 10th day of September, 1866, the defendant filed in the office of the State locating agent an application to purchase the southwest quarter, and the west half of the southeast quarter of section six, and the north half of the northwest quarter of section seven, township nine, range three west, Mount Diablo meridian.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court, Twentieth Judicial District, County of Santa Cruz. On the 10th day of September, 1866, the defendant filed in the office of the State locating agent an application to purchase the southwest quarter, and the west half of the southeast quarter of section six, and the north half of the northwest quarter of section seven, township nine, range three west, Mount Diablo meridian. The application was defective because it waa not accompanied by the affidavit mentioned in the opinion. The lands were applied for in lieu of the north half of section thirty-six, township…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court:
The defendant’s application for the location of the lands in contest was insufficient. The statute of April 27, 1863 (p. 593), under which the application for the location was made, requires that the application be accompanied by the affidavit of three disinterested persons, stating, among other things, that the applicant is a resident of the State, and that the lands were unoccupied by any person except the applicant. The affidavit, filed on behalf of the defendant, failed to state those facts. After the location was approved, the defendant failed to make payment within the time…
2Cited by9 opinions
- Gilson v. RobinsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886
- Manley v. CunninghamCalifornia Supreme Court · 1887
- McFaul v. PfankuchCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
- Reynolds v. Churchill Co.California Supreme Court · 1921
- Perri v. BeaumontCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.