Wholey v. Cavanaugh
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Siskiyou County. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
Hayne, C.
Ejectment. Judgment for defendant. Plaintiff appeals.
Both parties claim through one Whitmire. In 1860, Whitmire, who then had only a school-land certificate of purchase upon which twenty per cent of the price had been paid, executed to one Coats an instrument, which is considered below, and Coats subsequently conveyed to the defendant. In 1878 the state issued a patent to Whit-mire, who, in 1884, made a deed to the plaintiff.
*134The plaintiff’s position is, that prior to the issuance of the patent, Whitmire had merely an interest which, while regarded as the legal title as against third…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Lawrence v. BallouCalifornia Supreme Court · 1869
- Rego v. PeltCalifornia Supreme Court · 1884
- Stanway v. RubioCalifornia Supreme Court · 1875
3Cited by10 opinions
- City of Manhattan Beach v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1996
- New Jersey v. DelawareSupreme Court of the United States · 1934
- Moore v. HoarCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1938
- United States v. Certain Parcels of Land SituateDistrict Court, S.D. California · 1949
- Hanlon v. McLainSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1952
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.