Wright v. Laugenour
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment for the defendant, and from an order denying a new trial, in the Sixth District Court, County of Sacramento. Dehsoh, J. The defendant, Thomas Laugenour, on the 9th day of July, 1864, made his application to the State Locating Agent, purporting to be under the provisions of the Act of April 27th, 1863, to purchase the land in controversy.
Read the full summary
Appeal from a judgment for the defendant, and from an order denying a new trial, in the Sixth District Court, County of Sacramento. Dehsoh, J. The defendant, Thomas Laugenour, on the 9th day of July, 1864, made his application to the State Locating Agent, purporting to be under the provisions of the Act of April 27th, 1863, to purchase the land in controversy. The application was accompanied by his own affidavit and that of three others, to the effect required by § 3 of the Act of April 23rd, 1858, (as amended by § 7 of the Act of April 21st, 1861) the jurat to the latter affidavit being…
1Opinion of the Court
McKinstry, J.:
In an action to determine a contest arising in the Surveyor-General’s or Register’s office, each party must allege the facts which, in his view, would authorize the issue of a certificate to him. (Christman v. Brainard, 51 Cal. 534.)
The plaintiff neither alleged in his complaint, nor proved at the trial, that he was a resident of the State of California, or that he was of lawful age, or that he had not entered any land in part satisfaction of the grant, in lieu of sixteenth or thirty sixth sections, which, together with that which he now seeks to purchase, exceeded three hundred…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Jobson v. FennellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1868
- Christman v. BrainardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1876
3Cited by3 opinions
- Cunningham v. ShanklinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1882
- Peabody v. PrinceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
- Laugenour v. HennaginCalifornia Supreme Court · 1881