Plummer v. Brown
Citations
- 70 Cal. 544
- 12 P. 464
- 1886 Cal. LEXIS 841
Syllabus
<p>Public Land—Contest as to Right to Purchase — Conclusiveness of Judgment. — In hearing and determining a contest between rival claimants of the right to purchase public lands of the United States, the officers of the land department act judicially; and their judgments cannot be collaterally assailed in an action at law.</p> <p>Id.—Title Acquired by Fraud-—■ Trust—Action to Compel Conveyance of Legal Title. — If the successful claimant has acquired, pursuant to the judgment, the legal title affected with any fraud or trust in relation to it, he will be regarded in equity as a trustee of the true owner, who may by a proper proceeding compel a conveyance to himself of the legal title.</p> <p>Id.—Pleading—Evidence.—In an action by the unsuccessful claimant to compel a conveyance of the legal title, the plaintiff must distinctly allege and clearly prove that he occupies such a status as gives him the right to control the legal title.</p> <p>Id. — The action was brought by an unsuccessful claimant of the right to purchase certain public land of the United States under the pre-emption and homestead laws, against the successful claimant, to compel the latter to convey the legal title to the plaintiff. The complaint showed that in the contest as to the right to purchase, the land department had decided that the defendant settled upon and occupied the land before the plaintiff entered upon it, and had not abandoned his occupation, and that the plaintiff invaded the occupation of the defendant, and was not a qualified pre-emptor. Held, that the plaintiff was not in a position to control the legal title issued to the defendant.</p> <p>Id. — Insufficient Allegations of Fraud.—In order to avoid the conclusiveness of the judgment of the land department, the complaint alleged in general, terms that the judgment was based upon certain false, perjured, incompetent, and irrelevant evidence introduced by the defendant, but did not state what the evidence was. Held, that the complain
Judges: McKee
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
5 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Buckley v. HoweCalifornia Supreme Court· 1890-12-06· cited 25×
- Mery v. BrodtCalifornia Supreme Court· 1898-06-30· cited 5×
- Merriam v. BachioniCalifornia Supreme Court· 1896-03-28· cited 2×
- Warren Irr. Co. v. CharltonUtah Supreme Court· 1921-04-22· cited 2×
- Onekama Realty Co. v. WilsonArizona Supreme Court· 1933-06-20· cited 1×
Cites
13 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Steel v. Smelting Co.Supreme Court· 1882-12-18· cited 256×
- Marquez v. FrisbieSupreme Court· 1879-12-18· cited 160×
- Quinby v. ConlanSupreme Court· 1882-01-18· cited 136×
- Payne v. ElliotCalifornia Supreme Court· 1880-07-01· cited 51×
- Barnard's Heirs v. ASHLEY'S HEIRSSupreme Court· 1856-01-18· cited 45×
- United States v. AthertonSupreme Court· 1880-12-20· cited 42×
- Hosmer v. WallaceSupreme Court· 1879-03-24· cited 34×
- Garland v. WynnSupreme Court· 1857-12-30· cited 33×
- Kentfield v. HayesCalifornia Supreme Court· 1881-07-01· cited 26×
- Chapman v. QuinnCalifornia Supreme Court· 1880-07-01· cited 13×
- Aurrecoechea v. SinclairCalifornia Supreme Court· 1882-05-30· cited 13×
- Smer v. DugganCalifornia Supreme Court· 1880-07-01· cited 4×
- Powers v. LeithCalifornia Supreme Court· 1879-07-01· cited 2×
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.