Aurrecochea v. Hinckley
California Supreme Court
APPEAL from Third Judicial District, Alameda County.
1Concurrence
WALLACE, J.,
Concurring. — I concur in the opinion and in the judgment. To prevent possible misunderstanding, however, it is perhaps material to observe that the plaintiffs here have no patent, nor any determination of the survey under the act of Congress of June 14, 1860. They have, therefore, no final confirmation of title: Johnson v. Van Dyke, 20 Cal. 225; Davis v. Davis, 26 Cal. 46, 85 Am. Dec. 157; Beach v. Gabriel, 29 Cal. 580; Mahoney v. Vanwinkle, 33 Cal. 448.
The possession of the defendant, though held under Wilkinson and Pacheco, was nevertheless adverse as to the title of the…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- McManus v. O'SullivanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1874
- Gardiner v. MillerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1874
- Galland v. LewisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1864
- Mahoney v. Van WinkleCalifornia Supreme Court · 1867
- Johnson v. DykeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1862
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.