Hogaboom v. Ehrhardt

Citations

• 58 Cal. 231

Syllabus

<p>Swamp and Overflowed Land—Definition—Evidence—Survey—Instructions.—In an action of ejectment—the plaintiff deraigning title under a United States patent, and the defendant under a certificate of purchase, as swamp land, from the State—the patent being for the northeast quarter, and the certificate for the south-east quarter of section 6, township 5 north, range 5 east, Mount Diablo meridian; and it being admitted that the defendant was in possession of twenty acres of the land included in the patent, the defendant offered to prove that the land in his possession, and included in the patent, was, on the 28th day of September, 1850, and ever since has been, and still is, swamp and overflowed land, made thereby unfit for cultivation, and was therefore granted to the State by virtue of the swamp land grant of that date, but the offer was rejected by the Court.</p> <p>Held, that unless the twenty acres constituted the greater part of a legal subdivision, according to the Congressional system of surveys, they were not swamp and overflowed lands within the terms and meaning of the act; and that the ruling of the court was sustainable without considering other points of objection, on the ground that defendant did not offer to prove this fact.</p> <p>Held, further, that the Court rightly refused an instruction that the sale of the land by the State, the defendant’s grantor, if made in good faith, was confirmed by § 1 of the Act of Congress of July 23d, 1866, “ To quiet land titles in California,” as the certificate was for the south-east quarter of section 6, which did not include the land in controversy.</p>