Romie v. Casanova
Supreme Court of the United States
Error to the Supreme Court of the State of California. This is an action of ejectment, commenced in the District' Court for the Third Judicial District of the State of California.
Read the full summary
Error to the Supreme Court of the State of California. This is an action of ejectment, commenced in the District' Court for the Third Judicial District of the State of California. That court found as follows: — “First, That on the seventeenth day of December, 1845, Felix Buelna was alcalde of the pueblo de San José, and, as such, granted and conveyed in fee to Bicenta Padia a lot of land in said pueblo, fifty varas in front and one hundred varas in depth, and on that day measured the same, and delivered to said Padia the possession thereof; and that said Padia shortly afterwards and within…
1Opinion of the CourtChief Justice Waite
No Federal question is presented by the record in this case. The action was brought to recover the possession of certain lands. Both parties claimed title from the city of San Jose; and the question to be determined was, which of the .two had actually obtained a grant of the particular premises in controversy. The title of the city was not drawn in question. Even if it depended upon'the treaty of Guadaloupe Hidalgo and the several acts of Congress to ascertain- and settle private land, claims in California, the case would not be different. Both parties admit that title, and their litigation…
2Cited by15 opinions
- Blackburn v. Portland Gold Mining Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1900
- St. Paul, M. & M. Ry. Co. v. St. Paul & N. P. R.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1895
- McCune v. EssigCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1903
- Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. HodelDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 1986
- Evans v. Durango Land & Coal Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1897
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.