Mahoney v. Van Winkle
Citations
- 21 Cal. 552
Syllabus
<p>A qenekal objection to the form of a verdict, without any specification of the particulars in which it is alleged to be defective, will not be considered.</p> <p>A decree of the United States District Court, confirming a claim under a Mexican or Spanish grant, which has become final by the refusal of the Government to prosecute an appeal therefrom, and by stipulation of the District Attorney, settles forever the question of the validity of the grant.</p> <p>A confirmee of a Mexican grant, after a decree confirming to him a specified quantity within exterior limits, fixed by the grant, embracing more than the quantity confirmed, may maintain, until an official segregation is made, ejectment, for any portion of the land embraced within the exterior limits against one in possession claiming to be a preemptioner under the laws of the United States.</p> <p>Where a Mexican grant cedes a tract of land known by a particular name and specifies, in pursuance of the grantee's petition, that a certain quantity is embraced within the limits of the tract, and also that any surplus above the specified quantity which, upon a survey and measurement by the Government, may be found within its boundaries, is reserved for the benefit of the nation; such grant vests in the grantee the right to the possession of the entire tract until by an official measurement and survey it has been determined that a surplus exists and the limits of the specific quantity granted are established.</p> <p>The grantee cannot, in such case, himself make the measurement and segregation, but must await the action of the Government. He is therefore directly interested until the official segregation to protect the entire tract from waste and injury, and to improve it; and until then third persons cannot question his right to the possession of the whole.</p> <p>Until the official segregation of the specific quantity granted, the entire tract within the exterior boundaries of the grant is exempted from preemptio
Judges: Field, Norton
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
15 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Frasher v. O'CONNORSupreme Court· 1885-05-04· cited 41×
- Carpentier v. WebsterCalifornia Supreme Court· 1865-07-01· cited 24×
- Brown v. WarrenNevada Supreme Court· 1881-07-15· cited 20×
- Thornton v. MahoneyCalifornia Supreme Court· 1864-07-01· cited 16×
- Mahoney v. Van WinkleCalifornia Supreme Court· 1867-10-15· cited 14×
- Morgan v. MorganCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1963-09-25· cited 10×
- Carpentier v. ThirstonCalifornia Supreme Court· 1864-07-01· cited 6×
- Rich v. MaplesCalifornia Supreme Court· 1867-07-15· cited 6×
- Yates v. SmithCalifornia Supreme Court· 1869-07-01· cited 6×
- Shanklin v. McNamaraCalifornia Supreme Court· 1891-01-04· cited 4×
- Mather v. DunnSouth Dakota Supreme Court· 1898-10-18· cited 4×
- Love v. ShartzerCalifornia Supreme Court· 1867-07-01· cited 3×
- Franc v. RichmondU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern California· 1864-08-18· cited 2×
- Mound City Land & Water Ass'n v. PhilipCalifornia Supreme Court· 1884-01-29
- Weese v. BarkerSupreme Court of Colorado· 1884-02-08
Cites
4 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
Other cases named Mahoney v. Van Winkle
1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.
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.