Megerle v. Ashe
Citations
- 33 Cal. 74
Syllabus
<p>Title by Pre-emption.—One having a title to land by a patent from the United States, which he claims extends by relation back of the date of the patent, and had its inception in a pre-emption right, cannot show title back of the patent as against another also claiming under the United States, but by a different process, unless at the time he filed his declaratory statement as a pre-emptioner the plat of the survey of the land had been filed in the local Land Office, and approved by the Surveyor (xeneral.</p> <p>Pacts recited in Opinion op the Secretary of the Interior not Evidence.— The recital-, in an opinion of the Secretary of the Interior, given in a contest as to a pre-emption right, of the facts upon which the right to a pre-emption was based, is not evidence of the facts recited.</p> <p>Piling Plat of Survey in Local Land Office.—If the statement shows that the only evidence introduced of the filing of the plat of survey in the local Land Office was an indorsement on the same of the day of filing, which is not signed by the Register, the day named will be taken on that appeal as fixing the time.</p> <p>Time of Piling Pre-emption Claim.—Courts have no power to dispense with the requirement of the Act of Congress that pre-emptioners must file their declaratory statements within three months after the return of the plat to the Land Office.</p> <p>Decision of Secretary of the Interior as an Estoppel.—The decision of the Secretary of the Interior, that a pre-emption claim is valid, is not an estoppel as to one who contested the same, not as a pre-emption claimant, but claimed under an Act of Congress donating land to a State, even if binding upon contesting claimants of the right to a pre-emption.</p> <p>Estoppel.—A party cannot rely upon a judicial determination of an issue by way of estoppel, and also upon proof of the facts upon which the determination is based.</p> <p>Evidence as to Facts on which Estoppel is Based.—If the party entitled to set up an estopp
Judges: Rhodes, Sawyer
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
21 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Lux v. HagginCalifornia Supreme Court· 1886-04-26· cited 265×
- Hicks v. LovellCalifornia Supreme Court· 1883-07-23· cited 50×
- Osgood v. El Dorado Water & Deep Gravel Mining Co.California Supreme Court· 1880-07-01· cited 35×
- People v. HagarCalifornia Supreme Court· 1877-07-01· cited 29×
- Poppe v. AthearnCalifornia Supreme Court· 1872-01-15· cited 20×
- Smith v. AthernCalifornia Supreme Court· 1868-07-01· cited 11×
- Araújo Vda. de Jiménez v. ArenasSupreme Court of Puerto Rico· 1942-04-21· cited 10×
- Hestres v. BrennanCalifornia Supreme Court· 1869-07-01· cited 8×
- Slater v. StoffelIndiana Court of Appeals· 1969-06-17· cited 7×
- Schieffery v. TapiaCalifornia Supreme Court· 1885-12-16· cited 7×
- Hastings v. DevlinCalifornia Supreme Court· 1870-10-15· cited 6×
- Barstow v. City R. R.California Supreme Court· 1871-10-15· cited 6×
- Hastings v. JacksonCalifornia Supreme Court· 1873-07-01· cited 5×
- City & County of San Francisco v. Spring Valley Water WorksCalifornia Supreme Court· 1870-07-01· cited 4×
- Southern Pac. Co. v. City of RenoD. Nevada· 1919-04-04· cited 3×
- Burrell v. HawCalifornia Supreme Court· 1870-10-15· cited 2×
- Oakley v. StuartCalifornia Supreme Court· 1878-07-01
- Flint v. BellCalifornia Supreme Court· 1870-12-12
- Megerle v. AsheCalifornia Supreme Court· 1871-01-31
- Oakley v. StuartCalifornia Supreme Court· 1875-12-11
Cites
1 case in this archive is cited by this case.
Other cases named Megerle v. Ashe
3 other CourtListener records share 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.