Leviston v.Ryan
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.
1Opinion of the Court
Hayne, C.
—Ejectment. The plaintiff claims through a patent from the state of California, issued under the act of 1862, and amendatory acts in relation to agricultural colleges. The defense is, that the patent is void. The court below gave judgment for the defendant, and the plaintiff appeals. Two points are made by the defendant in support of the judgment.
1. It is said that the tract in controversy is part of the four leagues confirmed to the city and county of San Francisco as successor of the pueblo. If this were true there could be no doubt but that the plaintiff’s patent is void. But…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Steel v. Smelting Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1882
- Doll v. MeadorCalifornia Supreme Court · 1860
- Minter v. CrommelinSupreme Court of the United States · 1856
- Collins v. BartlettCalifornia Supreme Court · 1872
- Speegle v. LeeseCalifornia Supreme Court · 1876
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Himmelman v. HenryCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
- Rinkenberger v. RinkenbergerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1929
- Southern Pacific Railroad v. PurcellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
- Hooper v. YoungCalifornia Supreme Court · 1903
- Roncelli v. FugaziCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1919
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.