Danielwitz v. Temple
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment for defendant, in the Seventeenth District Court, County of Los Angeles. Sepulveda, J. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court (from the Bench):
The action was dismissed by the Court below, upon the ground that the complaint did not show, by proper averments, that the alleged contest between the parties had been, by order of the Surveyor-General, referred to the Court for trial. The judicial department of the State has no jurisdiction of a contest between *43opposing applicants for the purchase of lands belonging to the State, unless it has been specially referred to a Court by the Surveyor-General or Register of the State Land Office, according to the provisions of the act for regulating the sale of such…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Berry v. CammetCalifornia Supreme Court · 1872
3Cited by3 opinions
- McFaul v. PfankuchCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
- Byrd v. ReichertCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
- Blakeley v. KingsburyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1907