Page v. Hobbs
Before: Sawyer
Synopsis
Entry on Inclosed Public Land to Pre-empt.—If the defendant in an action to recover the possession of land, justifies his entry upon the prior possession of the plaintiff on the ground that the land was public land, subject to the pre-emption laws of the United States, and that he entered in pursuance of said laws, with intent to pre-empt, occupy, and enter the land in accordance with the provisions of the same, it devolves on him to show that he is one of the persons entitled to the benefit of said laws.
Bight to Pre-empt Suscol Banoho.—A declaratory statement under the preemption laws in relation to land within the boundaries of the Suscol Banoho, made by one who was not a bona fide purchaser from Vallejo, at any time between March 3d, 1863, and October loth, 1864, was of no effect. The Act of March 3d, 1863, withdrew said land from the operation of the pre-emption laws until October 15th, 1864..
What Pre-emptioner must Prove.—One claiming to hold public lands as a preemptor, as against a prior possessor, must show that he is one of the class of persons entitled to pre-empt, and that he has performed the acts prescribed by the pre-emption laws, or the prior possession will prevail.
Opinion — Sawyer
By the Court, Sawyer, J. This action was commenced on the 26th day of November, 1862, to recover a portion of the tract of land known as the “ Suscol Rancho.” The plaintiff was one of the purchasers under the grant to Vallejo. He had occupied for a series of [485]years, claiming title under said grant. Soon after the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, rejecting the Vallejo grant in 1862, numerous parties, regardless of the inclosures or possession of those who had for years occupied under conveyances from Vallejo, entered upon various tracts of the land covered by the rejected grant. Among the parties so entering were the defendants, each of whom laid claim to one hundred and sixty acres. These entries were made sometime during the summer and fall of 1862, and prior to the institution of this suit.
The defendants answered separately, and in their answers severally alleged, that, at the time of their respective entries upon the lands in question, said lands were public lands of the United States, subject to the pre-emption laws of 1841 as subsequently modified and extended over the State of California ; that they respectively entered upon tracts of one hundred and sixty acres each, and no more, under and in pursuance of said pre-emption laws, with the intent to occupy and enter the same in accordance with the terms of said Act, so soon as said lands should come into market. '
The testimony, by consent of the parties, was taken by a referee and reported to the Court, and the Court tried the case without a jury upon the testimony thus taken.
The Court found:
Firstly—The plaintiff, on and for several years before the twenty-fifth day of October, had by himself and tenants, held the actual possession of the land described in the complaint, cultivating and using the same for the ordinary purposes of agriculture, farming and pasturage.
Secondly—That on or about said twenty-fifth day of October, A. D. 1862, the defendants entered upon said premises, and ousted and excluded plaintiff therefrom, and have from that time to the present withheld the same from him.
Also the value of the rents and profits, and the specific parts of which each was in possession, and rendered judgment-accordingly. A motion for new trial having been made and
More from California Supreme Court
- People v. Wende (1979)
- People v. Watson (1956)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996)
- People v. Kelly (2006)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)
- People v. Lewis (2021)
- In Re Estrada (1965)
- Denham v. Superior Court (1970)
- People v. Marsden (1970)