Canfield v. Thompson
California Supreme Court
Ejectment to recover lot 67 of the outside lands in the town of Santa Barbara, containing thirty-one and ninety-five-one-hundredths acres. The demanded premises were a portion of the pueblo lands of said town, confirmed under the Act of Congress to settle private land claims in California. The patent was issued on the 31st day of May, 1872. On the trial, the plaintiff offered the patent in evidence. The defendant objected that the patent was issued without authority of law.
Read the full summary
Ejectment to recover lot 67 of the outside lands in the town of Santa Barbara, containing thirty-one and ninety-five-one-hundredths acres. The demanded premises were a portion of the pueblo lands of said town, confirmed under the Act of Congress to settle private land claims in California. The patent was issued on the 31st day of May, 1872. On the trial, the plaintiff offered the patent in evidence. The defendant objected that the patent was issued without authority of law. The- Court overruled the objection. The patent was issued to the Mayor and Common Council of the City of Santa Barbara.…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court McKinstry, J:
The objection to the patent to the city of Santa Barbara was not well taken. The Act of Congress, “to ascertain and settle private land claims,” provides that a patent shall be issued to each “claimant” whose claim shall be finally confirmed.
The bill of exceptions contains all the evidence bearing upon the exceptions taken, and there is contained in it no evidence tending to show that the alleged deed from the town to Gasper Oreña was not in the possession or control of plaintiff. But a certified copy of a deed from the County Recorder’s office is “primary” evidence.…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Brown v. GriffithCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886