Manson v. Koppikus
California Supreme Court
Appeal from the District Court of the Sixth Judicial District, County of Sacramento. This was an action of ejectment to recover a lot of land in the City of Sacramento. The facts and the points raised are the same as those in the case of Ferris v. Coover (10 Cal. Rep., p. 589). Plaintiff had judgment and defendant appealed.
1Opinion of the Court 1
First. The error, as alleged by appellants, may be confined to the following propositions : That the grant in evidence did not convey an immediate interest in any land whatever, but that its validity depended upon subsequent events which never happened, and therefore title derived from it should not sustain ejectment.
Second. The grant does not cover the land in dispute.
The first point is well settled by the Supreme Court of the United States, in Fremont’s case, where the Court decided that upon the delivery of the grant, the fee at once passed to the grantee, and that all the conditions…
Also in this document: Opinion of the Court · Field.
2Cases cited4 opinions
- McIver Lessee v. Walker and AnotherSupreme Court of the United States · 1815
- Pernam v. WeadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1809
- Otis v. WalterSupreme Court of the United States · 1821
- Liter v. GreenSupreme Court of the United States · 1817
3Cited by1 opinion
- Randolph v. County of StanislausCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1919