Dollenmayer v. Pryor

California Supreme Court Oct 2, 1906 No. Sac. No. 1460.Published

Before: Shaw

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a protestant who lacks a proprietary interest or right of possession in the land cannot initiate a valid land contest before the surveyor-general, rendering any subsequent order of reference and the resulting court action void for lack of jurisdiction. Consequently, the denial of the application to intervene was affirmed because the court lacked jurisdiction over the underlying action.

Issues

Whether an order denying an application to intervene is an appealable final judgment.
Whether a party without a proprietary interest or right of possession can initiate a land contest under section 3414 of the Political Code.
Whether the superior court acquires jurisdiction over a land contest in the absence of a lawful order of reference.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“It ended the litigation as to him, and he should be allowed an immediate appeal.”

“In the absence of statutory authority, one who does not himself claim a paramount title or right of possession to the land, or apply to purchase the same from the state, but merely protests against a proposed purchase by another, cannot”

“Jurisdiction in such cases exists only by virtue of a lawful order of reference, issued upon a real contest, by a party whose protest shows himself entitled to oppose the purchase.”

Synopsis

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

SHAW, J.

This is an appeal by James Caesar from an order of . the superior court denying his application to be allowed to intervene in an action between Dollenmayer and Mellen as plaintiffs and Pryor as defendant.

The action was a land contest begun in pursuance of an order of reference from the surveyor-general, under section 3414 of the Political Code. Dollenmayer filed his application on November 28, 1903, to purchase an entire section as land not suitable for cultivation. His application was approved May 18, 1904, and a certificate of purchase was issued to him on June 18, 1904, and was thereafter assigned to plaintiff Mellen. Afterward, on July 26, 1905, Pryor filed a verified protest against the issuance of any further evidence of title under the Dollenmayer certificate, on the ground that the land was suitable for cultivation, that Dollenmayer was not a settler thereon, and that he did not make the application in good faith. Pryor demanded a trial in the courts. The order of reference was thereupon made on the day the protest was filed, and the action was begun September 24, 1905.

On August 10, 1905, after the order was made, but before suit was begun, Caesar settled on the north half of the section, which was then unoccupied, and on August 14, 1905, offered to the surveyor-general, for filing, his application, to purchase the same, including therein a protest against the Dollenmayer purchase, on the ground that the land was suitable for cultivation and that Dollenmayer was not an actual settler, and demanded a trial in the courts. The surveyor-general refused to receive or file the application on the ground that he had previously made an order of reference of the contest arising upon Pryor’s protest.

The complaint in intervention was presented, and leave

[3]

asked to intervene, a few days after the action was begun. It alleged, in addition to a statement of Caesar’s rights, that Dollenmayer did not apply to purchase in good faith, but for the benefit of Mellen, to whom he had previously agreed to sell the land, that Pryor’s protest was filed in collusion with Dollenmayer and Mellen, in pursuance of an agreement that Pryor should not appear in the action, and for the purpose of forestalling other applicants who might apply to purchase after the order of reference was made on •the protest. The court refused to allow the complaint to be filed.

Dollenmayer v. Pryor

AI Brief

Synopsis

SHAW, J.

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief