Skip to main content
· 7/1/1880

Laugenour v. Shanklin

Citations

  • 57 Cal. 70

Syllabus

<p>State Lands—Contest—Surveyor-General—Patent.—1£ a patent issues for land as swamp land, and the same land is a part of the 500,000-acre grant to the State, the patent is void, and does not deprive the Surveyor-General of the power to make an order referring to the appropriate Court a contest arising in his office between two or more contestants as to the right to purchase the land.</p> <p>Id.—Id.—Id.—In such case, after the appropriate Court has made its judgment, the Surveyor-General cannot be permitted to call in question the evidence on which the judgment was based, nor the rulings of the Court on matters of law.</p> <p>Id.—Id.—Id.—Party—Mandamus.—The statute does not contemplate that the Surveyor-General should be a party to the action; it is his duty to act in accordance with the judgment which may be made therein, and his compliance therewith may be compelled by mandamus.</p> <p>Id.—Id.—Id.—Intervention.—In such case, after judgment, new parties cannot come in to prevent the enforcement of such judgment. Section 387 of the Code of Civil Procedure does authorize an intervention under such circumstances.</p>

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • absent a showing of an abuse of discretion, attorney fee award was affirmed

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Ross

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced 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.