McLaughlin v. Menotti
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the Court
The Court.
Upon the former appeal in this case (89 Cal. 354), the case was remanded for a new trial, for failure of the trial court to find whether Hirleman, the predecessor of the defendant, was a bona fide settler upon the lands involved in the action, within the meaning of section 4 of the act of Congress of July 2, 1864 (13 U. S. Stats. 358), amending the act of July 1, 1862. That section, so far as applicable to the present case, as found in the printed volume of the statutes, reads as follows: “And any lands granted by this act, or the act to which this is an amendment, shall not defeat…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Kansas Pacific Railway Co. v. DunmeyerSupreme Court of the United States · 1885
- Broder v. Water Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1879
- McLaughlin v. MenottiCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
3Cited by2 opinions
- Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. HixCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1926
- State v. GrovesOhio Supreme Court · 1909