Pratt v. Crane
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment for the defendants in the Third District Court, County of Alameda. McKee, J. The defendants deraigned title under a State patent to one Joel Harlan for the west half of a section, the east half of which was on the same day patented to the plaintiff in the case of Huff v. Doyle, the titles of Huff and Harlan being exactly similar.
1Opinion of the CourtSharpstein, J.
Action to quiet title. The appellant relies upon a patent of the United States, and the respondents rely upon a State patent for the land in controversy. The date of the latter is prior to that of the former, and if valid the latter must prevail. This appeal is from the judgment, which the appellant insists is not supported by the findings. The facts found, with two exceptions, are the same as those found in Huff v. Doyle, 93 U. S. 558, which were held to be sufficient to entitle the plaintiff in that action to recover.
The plaintiff in that action had acquired from the State a patent, based…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Huff v. DoyleSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
3Cited by4 opinions
- Howell v. SlausonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
- Cucamonga Fruit-Land Co. v. MoirCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
- Blakeley v. KingsburyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1907
- Crane v. CarrCalifornia Supreme Court · 1881