Skip to main content
· 1/4/1891

Shanklin v. McNamara

Citations

  • 87 Cal. 371
  • 26 P. 345
  • 1891 Cal. LEXIS 988

Syllabus

<p>Public Lands—Act to Quiet Land Titles—Mexican Grant—Patent — Ejectment—• Evidence. — A patent issued by the United States under the act of Congress of July 23, 1866, to quiet land titles in California, to a bona Jide purchaser of lands within the exterior boundaries of a Mexican grant, which were excluded from the final survey, is prima fade evidence of a right in the patentee to recover the lands patented in an action of ejectment, and is conclusive, unless it can be successfully impeached by the defendants.</p> <p>Id.—Impeachment ©f Patent — Evidence — Swamp and Overflowed Land — Certificate of Purchase.—The patent so issued cannot be impeached by evidence that the land patented was swamp and overflowed land, notwithstanding the defendants hold a certificate of purchase thereof from the state, and it is not error to exclude such evidence.</p> <p>Id. —Swamp-land in Mexican Grant — Construction of Act of 1850.— Though the act of September 28, 1850, operated as a grant of swamplands to the state in prcesenti, it was not the intention of Congress to grant thereby to the state of California swamp-lands lying within the exterior boundaries of a Mexican grant, though such lands were finally excluded from the survey.</p> <p>Id. —Action of Land Department—Contest—Adjudication of Pacts. ■—The decision of the land department of the United States upon questions of fact coming before it upon a contest of the right to enter and purchase lands from the United States is conclusive upon the parties before it and those claiming under them, if the decision is free from fraud and fraudulent imposition.</p> <p>Id. — Fraud — Collateral Attack — Relief in Equity. — Fraud or fraudulent imposition upon the land department in the obtaining of a patent cannot be set up by way of collateral attack upon the patent in an action of ejectment brought by the patentee, and the patent can only be assailed on these grounds by a proceeding in equity.</p> <p>Id. —■ Estoppel of State and its Grantee

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • Review Panel reprimand for violation of Rules 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, and 9.3 in connection with one client matter
  • Review Panel reprimand for violation of Rules 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, and 9.3 in connection with one client matter
  • attorney in default after failing to respond to notice of discipline; Review Panel reprimand for violation of Rules 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, and 9.3 in representing one client in immigration matter; no prior disciplinary history
  • attorney in default after failing to respond to notice of discipline; Review Panel reprimand for violation of Rules 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, and 9.3 in representing one client in immigration matter; no prior disciplinary history

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Paterson, Thornton

Read full opinion on CourtListener

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.