Grogan v. Knight

By the Court, Rhodes, J. This is an action of ejectment to recover the possession of a portion of the lands formerly known as the Suscol Rancho. The premises are public lands of the United States, and have never been surveyed under the authority of Congress. The plaintiff relies for his title upon certificates of purchase issued October 17, 1862, by the Register of the State Land Office, upon the location and sale of school lands, selected in lieu of the sixteenth and thirty-sixth sections of the public lands of the United States. The United States Register of the proper land district refused to approve the selection, because the lands were unsurveyed. The defendants were in possession, they having entered upon the land in May, 1862, and each of them claimed a right of pre-emption under the Acts of Congress, to the respective quarter sections upon which he had entered.

It appears in the statement on the defendants’ motion for a new trial, that “ the plaintiff testified that one Dr. Page had caused the lands to be inclosed in 1861; that said Dr. Page was the real party in interest in this suit; that the plaintiff only held the lands in his name in trust for Dr. Page, and to secure him for the advances he had made; that said Dr. Page had replevied the crops raised on the land, and received the same for [518]the year 1863, and had pastured the pasture part of the land; also had received the profits of the land in 1862.” The Court found as facts: “ First—On the 28th day of October, A. D. 1862, the plaintiff held the certificates of the State of California, duly issued, for the land in controversy; Second—The inceptive steps for the obtaining such certificates were taken before any one of the defendants entered upon the land.” The prior possession of the plaintiff, or his grantor, is neither admitted by the pleadings nor found by the Court; and the only finding of fact respecting the plaintiff’s title, possession or right of possession, is as above mentioned. The Court from those facts found the. following conclusions of law : “ First—The plaintiff was at the time alleged in his complaint seized and possessed of the land in controversy, and had title thereto; Second—The title thus held, and the right of possession flowing therefrom, relate to the first steps taken for acquiring the same.” It thus clearly appears that the Court found for the plaintiff on the sole ground that the certificates of purchase were sufficient to convey, and did convey to the plaintiff, the right to the possession of the lands described in the certificates, and not on the ground of the prior possession of the plaintiff or Dr. Page. We are, therefore, not required to determine whether the evidence was sufficient to have enabled the Court to find for the plaintiff on the ground of the prior possession of Dr. Page, if it had clearly appeared that his right depending upon his possession had been transferred to the plaintiff. The first finding of fact, which is unnecessarily indefinite, and merely states a portion of the evidence tending to prove a fact, would seem to indicate that the certificates of purchase were issued to the plaintiff or had been assigned to him, rather than that Dr'. Page had conveyed the land to him.