Francis v. Green
Idaho Supreme Court
APPEAL from District Court, Bannock County. In a suit to quiet title the plaintiff must allege and prove title in himself, and if he fails he cannot recover. (See Heney v. Pesoli, 109 Cal. 53, 41 Pac. 819; Winter v. McMillan, 81 Cal. 256, 22 Am.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from District Court, Bannock County. In a suit to quiet title the plaintiff must allege and prove title in himself, and if he fails he cannot recover. (See Heney v. Pesoli, 109 Cal. 53, 41 Pac. 819; Winter v. McMillan, 81 Cal. 256, 22 Am. St. Eep. 243, 25 Pac. 401; San Francisco v. Ellis, 54 Cal. 12.) W. M. Francis, the vendor of the plaintiffs, not only could not acquire any right to the land or water on the reservation but was forbidden by law from going upon the land and when he did go upon the land and settled thereon he committed a crime against the laws of the United States. (See…
1Opinion of the CourtStockslager, J.
In this case we are called upon to review the proceedings of the trial court on appeal from the judgment thereof. It appears that William M. Francis and Sarah F. Francis are husband and wife. The complaint alleges that *671the real estate which is the subject of this action is the separate property of the plaintiff Sarah M. Francis, and for that reason William M. Francis is not made a party to the action. The complaint alleges: That about the year 1879 said plaintiff and her said husband located upon and improved a certain tract of land as follows: “About one hundred and sixty acres lying along…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- State v. MarquardsenIdaho Supreme Court · 1900
3Cited by6 opinions
- Anselmo v. BeardmoreIdaho Supreme Court · 1950
- Olson v. Idaho Department of Water ResourcesIdaho Supreme Court · 1983
- Ferguson v. BloodCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1907
- Deeds v. StephensIdaho Supreme Court · 1902
- Reynolds Irrigation Dist. v. SproatIdaho Supreme Court · 1950
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.