Robinson v. Forrest

Citations

• 29 Cal. 317

Syllabus

<p>Pre-Emptioner may attack State Patent.—A person who had settled upon and claimed as a pre-emptioner unsurveyed public land of the United States, before a sale of the same as swamp and overflowed land, and the issuance of a patent therefor by the State, is in such privity with the title of the United States as enables him to attack the patent by showing that the land is not swamp and overflowed.</p> <p>Evidence that Land is Swamp and Overflowed.—A patent of the State, for land sold as swamp and overflowed, before the same has been listed to the State by the United States as swamp and overflowed land, is not conclusive evidence of ^ the character of the same, but parol evidence may be introduced to show whether , it is dry, or swamp and overflowed.</p> <p>Legal Subdivisions of Public Land.—The phrase “ legal subdivisions,” as used in the Act of Congress, passed September 28th, 1850, relating to swamp and overflowed lands, refers to the smallest subdivision under the Congressional system of surveys.</p> <p>State Ownership of Swamp Lands.—The doctrine that the State is the owner of all swamp and overflowed lands in its limits, as laid down in Summers v. Dickinson, 9 Cal. 554, and Kernan v. Griffith, 27 Cal. 87, modified.</p> <p>Plat of United States Survey as Evidence. — In the trial of an issue' between one claiming under the State, and a pre-emption claimant, as to whether a particular tract of land is swamp and overflowed, the approved plat of the survey by the United States is admissible in evidence to show the lines of the legal subdivisions, but not to prove that the lands are swamp and overflowed.</p>