Gunn v. Bates

Citations

• 6 Cal. 263
• 1856 Cal. LEXIS 121

Syllabus

<p>In an action of ejectment, under a Mexican grant, Held by Murray, C. J., that this Court is bound to regard the decisions of the United States Supreme Court, establishing the rule that a conditional grant from Mexico conveys a good title, without performance of the conditions sufficient to maintain ejectment, and admissible to qualify the plaintiffs’ actual possession. The land must belong either to the United States or the claimants under the grant—the question as to the rights of this State not being raised ; and where the highest federal tribunal, having full authority to decide these questions, has voluntarily abandoned the claim of title of the Government, it would appear strange that the Courts of this State should question the rule so established. Certainly a mere intruder cannot gainsay it.</p> <p>Held by Terry, J., that the title of such a grantee is insufficient to maintain ejectment. Admitting that such a grant does not convey a perfect title, or one sufficient to maintain ejectment, yet an entry on the land under the grant, vested in the grantee, there being no adverse possession, the right to exclusive occupancy of the land embraced within the boundaries of his tract. The law construes the entry to be co-extensive with the grant.</p> <p>It follows that the grant is admissible in evidence, to show the extent of the plaintiffs’ possession, and the animus with which he entered.</p> <p>The law does not require the whole tract to be enclosed; it is sufficient that the grant calls for distinct boundaries.</p> <p>The fact that the plaintiff stood by and permitted defendant to settle on the land, will not warrant an instruction that the plaintiff is thereby estopped from asserting his title.</p> <p>Estoppels, in such cases, proceed upon the ground of fraud or culpable silence, which are facts for the jury, and not matters of legal construction by the Court.</p>