Thompson v. True

Citations

• 48 Cal. 601
• 1874 Cal. LEXIS 211

Syllabus

<p>Title of State to Sixteenth and Thibty-Sixth Sections.—An Act of' Congress, passed after March 3, ^1853, permitting the purchasers from the claimant of a rejected Mexican grant, to enter the land included within the boundaries of the grant; at one dollar and twenty-five cents, per acre, does not divest the State of its title to the sixteenth and thirty-sixth sections within the grant; and a patent issued by the United States under said Act, to one of such purchasers, of a sixteenth orthirtyrsixth section, does not convey the title.</p> <p>Estoppel by Judgment.—If the matters determined by a judgment against a defendant are set forth in the complaint, the question, as to whether the defendant is estopped by it, arises on the complaint.</p> <p>Kefebence of Land Contest to Distbict Coubt fob Tbial.—If an application is made to the Register of' the State Land Office to purchase land, and a protest is filed on the ground that the State has no title, and that the title is in the protestant, and that he has the better right to purchase, and a contest arises before the State Register, which he refers to the District Court for trial, and an action is commenced in'the District Court, it has jurisdiction to determine the question whether the State has title to the land.</p> <p>Estoppel by Judgment in Case op Contest to Purchase Land. — If a party makes an application to the Register of the State Land Office to purchase a sixteenth or thirty-sixth section of public land, and one who has obtained a patent to the land from the United States files a protest, claiming that the title is not in the State, and that he has the better right to purchase, and the contest is referred to the District Court for trial, and the District Court adjudges that the title to the land is not in the State, and that neither party has a right to purchase the land from the State, and the applicant afterwards obtains a patent from the State, the applicant is estopped by the judgment from averring that