Glasmann v. O'Donnell
Utah Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of tbe district court of tbe third district- and from an order refusing a new trial. Tbe pleadings in tbe case were as follows: Plaintiff filed an ordinary complaint to quiet title under tbe staute averring title and ownership in fee, and deraigning tbe title by a .series of deeds from tbe patentee of tbe United States.
Read the full summary
Appeal from a judgment of tbe district court of tbe third district- and from an order refusing a new trial. Tbe pleadings in tbe case were as follows: Plaintiff filed an ordinary complaint to quiet title under tbe staute averring title and ownership in fee, and deraigning tbe title by a .series of deeds from tbe patentee of tbe United States. Defendant answered denying tbe plaintiff’s title, and averring title and ownership in fee, and deraigning title from tbe same patentee of tbe United States by a series of ■deeds, and also setting up the statute of limitations and adverse title by…
1Concurrence
Blackburn, J., concurred, Zane, C. J., having been of counsel, and Anderson, J., having heard the motion for new trial in the court below, did not sit.
A petition for a rehearing was filed in this case by the attorneys for the appellant, wherein they urged that the two cases cited by the court in its opinion were not in point. The case of Mining Co. v. Kerr did not decide that in an action of this kind the question as to whether a patent had been “ fraudulently obtained or improvidently issued” could be decided, but held that a patent which was claimed to be invalid, and therefore void, not…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Smelting Co. v. KempSupreme Court of the United States · 1882
- Boggs v. Merced Mining Co.California Supreme Court · 1859
- Castro v. BarryCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
- Barfield v. PriceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1871
- Von Drachenfels v. DoolittleCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.