Buckley v. Howe
Citations
- 86 Cal. 596
- 25 P. 132
- 1890 Cal. LEXIS 1075
Syllabus
<p>Patent — Enforcement of Trust — Fraud — Mistake of Land Department. — Equity will decree and enforce a trust in favor of a party who shows a better right to land, a patent for which had been procured by the fraud of the defendant, and through mistake and misconception of the law on the part of the officers of the land department of the government.</p> <p>Id.—Equitable Title of Plaintiff—Right to Control Legal Title. — In such a case, it is not enough to show that the defendant was not entitled to have received the patent, hut the plaintiff must show that he himself occupies such a status toward the property as entitles him to control the legal title.</p> <p>Id. — Pre-emption Claim — Pleading — Conclusion of Law—Pacts Conferring Prior Right. —- Where the plaintiff in such action claims priority of right over the defendant to become the purchaser from the government, and to receive a patent for the land in controversy, under a pre-emption claim, it is not enough to allege be had or has such right, as that allegation is a mere conclusion of law; but the plaintiff must show the state of facts conferring such right, and also that he took the legal steps to avail himself thereof.</p> <p>Id. — Homestead Entry — Rejected Application—Failure to Appeal or Contest Issuance of Patent. — Where the application for a homestead entry, under which the plaintiff claims, was rejected, and no appeal was prosecuted from the order of the register and receiver rejecting the same, and no further steps were taken to secure its approval, or to contest the issuance of the patent to the defendant, who proved up and paid for the land as a pre-emption claimant, the plaintiff possesses no right, by virtue of his homestead entry, to control the patent, or to enforce a trust therein.</p> <p>Id.—Possession of Land Pre-empted by Defendant.— Nor will the fact that the plaintiff claims as an assignee of an actual possessor of the laud pre-empted by the defendant avail the plaintiff, it not appearing
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- reversing convictions solely supported by illegally obtained evidence
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Fox
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.