Le Roy v. Clayton
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of California
This is an action [by Theodore Le Roy against Charles Clayton and others] to recover land. The premises are claimed to be a part of the rancho “Guadaloupe,” situate in the county of Santa Barbara, granted by the Mexican authorities to Diego Olivera and Teodora Arrellanes. The grant was duly presented for confirmation, and confirmed. under the act of congress of 1851 [9 Stat. 631], applicable to the subject.
Read the full summary
This is an action [by Theodore Le Roy against Charles Clayton and others] to recover land. The premises are claimed to be a part of the rancho “Guadaloupe,” situate in the county of Santa Barbara, granted by the Mexican authorities to Diego Olivera and Teodora Arrellanes. The grant was duly presented for confirmation, and confirmed. under the act of congress of 1851 [9 Stat. 631], applicable to the subject. It was surveyed under the act of 1860 [12 Stat. 71], and on June 30, 1866, the commissioner of the general land office, in due form, issued a patent which was signed by the president,…
1Opinion of the Court
SAWYER, Circuit Judge,
(after stating the facts.) The patent of March 1, 1870, took effect from the moment it was signed by the president and passed the great seal. Certainly, from the time it was recorded in the proper record and despatched to the surveyor-general for California, to be delivered to the claimants. A delivery in the case of a government patent is not necessary. The patentee takes by matter of record. Lott v. Prudhomme, 3 Rob. (La.) 293, which *360is directly in point. Donner v. Palmer, 31 Cal. 513; Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch [5 U. S.] 137; Green v. Liter, 8 Cranch [12 U. S.] 247;…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Doll v. MeadorCalifornia Supreme Court · 1860
- Chipley v. FarrisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1873
- Donner v. PalmerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1867
- Stevens v. HatchSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1861
- Tibbals v. JacobsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1863
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Pengra v. MunzUnited States Circuit Court · 1887
- Warner Valley Stock Co. v. MorrowOregon Supreme Court · 1906