Mahoney v. Van Winkle
Citations
- 33 Cal. 448
Syllabus
<p>Segregation of a Spanish Grant.—If, pending proceedings for confirmation of a Mexican grant of a specific quantity of land to be located within the exterior limits of a larger quantity, a survey is made of the quantity confirmed, and a plat thereof is filed with the Court for information, and if after the confirmation the Court sets aside a subsequent survey and orders a new survey to be made in accordance with the first survey, and the new survey does not accord with the first, and is set aside by the Supreme Court of the United States, which Court at the same time affirms the order directing the survey to be in accordance with the first, this judgment of the Supreme Court operates as a final location and segregation of the grant, without any further proceedings or survey.</p> <p>Judgment Adopting a Map.—A judgment of the Supreme Court of the United States affirming an order directing a survey of a Mexican grant to be made according to a survey and plat on file, makes the survey and plat referred to a part of the judgment by adoption.</p> <p>Mexican Grant.—A judgment of a Court of the United States directing a survey of a Mexican grant of land to be made in accordance with a survey and plat on file, is a final segregation and location of the grant.</p> <p>Final Location of Grant.—When the survey of a Mexican grant has become final by approval, its segregation and location are complete without the issuance of a patent.</p> <p>Final Confirmation of a Grant.—Since the Act of Congress of 1860, taking the approval of surveys of Mexican grants from the Executive Department and placing it in the Judicial, the final confirmation of a grant is the final judgment of the Court on the question of location, and not the issuance of a patent.</p> <p>Limitation of Actions—Spanish Grants.—The Statute of Limitations in relation to Mexican and Spanish grants, commences running from the time of the final approval of the survey, and not from the time of the issuance of the patent.</
Judges: Shaeter
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
8 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Carr v. District CourtSupreme Court of Iowa· 1910-06-14· cited 18×
- Thrift v. DelaneyCalifornia Supreme Court· 1886-03-30· cited 16×
- Larrabee v. SelbyCalifornia Supreme Court· 1877-07-01· cited 10×
- Northern Pac. R. v. SmithEighth Circuit· 1895-08-19· cited 5×
- Sabichi v. AguilarCalifornia Supreme Court· 1872-01-15· cited 2×
- Hibberd v. SmithCalifornia Supreme Court· 1870-03-21· cited 1×
- Aurrecochea v. HinckleyCalifornia Supreme Court· 1874-11-12
- De Guyer v. BanningCalifornia Supreme Court· 1890-12-12
Cites
8 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Gray v. DoughertyCalifornia Supreme Court· 1864-07-01· cited 72×
- Natoma Water & Mining Co. v. ClarkinCalifornia Supreme Court· 1860-07-01· cited 59×
- Caperton v. SchmidtCalifornia Supreme Court· 1864-10-15· cited 33×
- Robinson v. ForrestCalifornia Supreme Court· 1865-07-01· cited 29×
- Mahoney v. Van WinkleCalifornia Supreme Court· 1863-07-01· cited 22×
- Johnson v. DykeCalifornia Supreme Court· 1862-07-01· cited 10×
- Goodlet v. SmithsonSupreme Court of Alabama· 1837-06-15· cited 10×
- Gale v. DavisSupreme Court of Missouri· 1842-08-15· cited 3×
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.