Page v. Fowler
Citations
- 37 Cal. 100
Syllabus
<p>Law of a Case.—The legal propositions decided on a first appeal, whether correctly decided or not, become the law of the case in all its subsequent stages, and will not be reviewed on a second appeal.</p> <p>Pre-emption on Rejected Mexican Grant.—If a Mexican grant of land is rejected, from the time of its rejection the land becomes a part of the public domain of the United States, and open to pre-emption.</p> <p>Replevin for Hay Cut on Land in Adverse Possession.—If P. is in the possession of public land, and while thus in possession, F. and others, being qualified pre-emptors, enter into actual possession in good,faith to pre-empt the same, and are proceeding according to the forms of the law to perfect their preemption, their possession is adverse under color of title, and P. cannot maintain ■ , a personal action for hay cut by them on the land, even if P. claims under a rejected Mexican grant, and is proceeding to perfect a pre-emption under a special Act of Congress. Whether F. and others acquire actual possession is a question of fact.</p> <p>Idem.—It is not material in such case whether the persons thus entering upon tho prior possession are qualified pre-emptors, provided they enter in good faith, believing themselves entitled to pre-empt, and entered for that purpose.</p> <p>Taking Possession of Inclosed Land.—One who enters upon land within the inolosure of another, and of which the other has the prior possession by the inclosure, and by having subjected it to his control, does not divest the prior possession of the other to any greater extent than he actually occupies' the land j and if ho occupies only one part, and enters upon another part and cuts hay thereon, this cutting of hay does not divest the possession of the other where the hay grew.</p> <p>Title by Prior Possession.—A party in the actual .possession of public land, to which he has no title, is to be deemed the owner as against mere intruders without title or color of title $ and the fact t
Judges: Crockett
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
10 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Page v. FowlerCalifornia Supreme Court· 1870-07-01· cited 60×
- State ex rel. Mason v. Harper's Ferry Bridge Co.West Virginia Supreme Court· 1879-12-26· cited 43×
- Plymouth County Bank v. GilmanSouth Dakota Supreme Court· 1892-06-18· cited 26×
- Portland Trust Co. v. CoulterOregon Supreme Court· 1892-10-31· cited 17×
- Groome v. AlmsteadCalifornia Supreme Court· 1894-02-27· cited 15×
- Heilbron v. HeinlenCalifornia Supreme Court· 1887-05-28· cited 10×
- Whittaker v. OttoCalifornia Court of Appeal· 1967-02-20· cited 7×
- Atherton v. FowlerCalifornia Supreme Court· 1873-07-01· cited 7×
- Venard v. GreenUtah Supreme Court· 1886-06-15· cited 4×
- Cloquet Lumber Co. v. BurnsEighth Circuit· 1913-07-10· cited 3×
Cites
2 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
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.