Kentfield v. Hayes
Citations
- 57 Cal. 409
Syllabus
<p>Patent—Ejectment—■ Title— Evidence.—In ejectment, a patent from the State appearing to he valid on its face, and conveying land subject to disposition by the State, is conclusive evidence of title against a defendant who shows no connection with the common or paramount source of title.</p> <p>Id.—Id.—Fraud—Answer—Pleading.—In such action, an answer states no defense which admits the patent, and avers that the plaintiff had procured the certificate of location upon which said patent was based, to be issued to him by exhibiting a false affidavit to the Surveyor-General; that the defendant had made application for the same land, and the said officer had been induced to reject his application by reason of fraud and imposition of the plaintiff.</p> <p>Ejectment—Equitable Defense—Pleading.—An equitable defense in an action of ejectment should contain, in substance, the elements of a bill in equity.</p> <p>Amended Answer—Pleading.—An amended answer supersedes the original answer.</p>
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- pencil marks had been made diagonally through the property disposition provisions of a purported will
- the drawing of pencil lines through provisions of a will is a sufficient canceling of those provisions
- “[t]he evidence was sufficient to rebut the statutory presump tion of revocation ... and to give rise to a presumption in favor of the propounder under the doctrine of dependent relative revocation”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: McKee
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.