Bonds v. Hickman
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court, Thirteenth Judicial District, Stanislaus County. The deed from James Smith to the plaintiff was in the usual form of deeds of bargain and sale, and contained no recitation or declaration that Smith held the title or conveyed it as administrator or trustee.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court, Thirteenth Judicial District, Stanislaus County. The deed from James Smith to the plaintiff was in the usual form of deeds of bargain and sale, and contained no recitation or declaration that Smith held the title or conveyed it as administrator or trustee. Defendant objected to its reception in evidence because the plaintiff had shown no order or authority from the Probate Court to sell the land or execute any conveyance therefor, and because she had shown no settlement of the estate of Robert Smith, deceased. Plaintiff appealed. The other facts are stated in…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court, Currey, C. J.:
The defendant obtained a patent from this State in May, 1862, purporting to grant him the parcel of land concerning which this action was instituted. In November of the same year One James Smith, the plaintiff’s grantor, obtained a patent for the same land from the Government of the United States. The patent so issued is claimed to be founded on a pre-emption claim of one Robert Smith, which had its inception long before the defendant instituted proceedings to obtain title to the same land under the laws of this State. The plaintiff claims that the patent was…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Burling v. ThompkinsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
- Estate of BazzuroCalifornia Supreme Court · 1911
- Hancock v. LopezCalifornia Supreme Court · 1879
- Sherman v. McCarthyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1881