Southern Pacific Railroad v. Purcell
California Supreme Court
Appeal from, a judgment of the Superior Court of Tulare County. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
Hayne, C.
Ejectment. The court below gave judgment for the plaintiff, and the defendant appeals.
1. The plaintiff introduced a patent from the United States, made in pursuance of a legislative grant. The defendant made a series of objections, all of which were based upon the ground that certain matters necessary to the validity of the patent had not been shown, and these objections are urged as reasons for the reversal of the judgment. The objections are not well taken. A patent, whether conclusive or not, is at least prima facie valid, and is presumptive evidence that all preliminary…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- SPARKS & Another v. PIERCE & OthersSupreme Court of the United States · 1885
- Minter v. CrommelinSupreme Court of the United States · 1856
- Phillips v. GoldtreeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1887
- Whitney v. MorrowSupreme Court of the United States · 1885
- Leviston v.RyanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
3Cited by12 opinions
- Valley Lumber & Manufacturing Co. v. DriesselIdaho Supreme Court · 1907
- Burns v. ScooffyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1893
- South Yuba Water & Mining Co. v. RosaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
- Ex parte KairNevada Supreme Court · 1905
- Ontario State Bank v. TibbitsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1889
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.