Slaughter v. Fowler (1872) · DecisionDepot

Slaughter v. Fowler

Name: California Superior Court Tentative Rulings
Creator: DecisionDepot
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

California Supreme Court Jul 1, 1872 No. No. 3,188Published

Before: Belcher

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The trial court's instruction regarding preemption was erroneous because it introduced an abstract legal concept irrelevant to the case that likely misled the jury, potentially causing them to believe ownership of 320 acres precluded the acquisition of possessory rights.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in instructing the jury on preemption laws when the case rested solely on the issue of prior actual possession.
Whether an instruction on an abstract legal principle that may have misled the jury constitutes reversible error.

Disposition. reversed and remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The Court properly excluded the paper, offered to show a selection of the land by the State, and thus left in the case only the question of prior possession.”

“We are also of the opinion that the jury may have been misled by the instruction.”

“But if the Court meant to tell the jury that one who owned three hundred and twenty acres of land could not, for that reason, acquire and hold the actual possession of other land, then the instruction was manifestly erroneous.”

Synopsis

Pkiok Possession oe Land.—One who owns three hundred and twenty-acres of land Is not precluded thereby from acquiring and holding the actual possession of other land, and retaining the same by reason of his prior possession, as against one who enters without title.

Erroneous Instructions to Jury.—If the Court instructs the jury upon an abstract proposition not before them, and there is anything in the instruction calculated to mislead, a new trial will be granted.

Evidence in Ejectment.—A certificate of the United States Register of Lands that the plaintiff, as the agent of the State, has located land at his office in part satisfaction of lands granted to the State, is not admissible in evidence of the locator’s right to recover in ejectment.

Recovery in Ejectment.—One who sues in ejectment to recover land on the ground of prior possession, and shows an actual possession by inclosure of a portion only of the demanded premises, is entitled to recover such portion.

By the Court, Belcher, J.: The Court instructed the jury as follows: “A party who at the time of his entry upon public lands was the owner of three hundred and twenty acres of land in any State or Territory of the United States, could not preempt public land.”

[199]The plaintiff excepted to the giving of this instruction, and now assigns the giving of it as error.

As disclosed in the record, there was nothing whatever in the case in regard to the right of either party to preempt under the laws of the United States. The plaintiff rested his right to recover wholly upon the ground of the prior actual possession of Yorba, his grantor, and upon certain proceedings taken to purchase the land of the State of California. The Court properly excluded the paper, offered to show a selection of the land by the State, and thus left in the case only the question of prior possession. Upon that question testimony was introduced by both parties; the plaintiff’s testimony tended to prove that for about fifteen years prior to the entry of the defendants’ grantors Yorba had held the actual possession of a portion of the demanded premises, and that his possession was evidenced by substantial inclosure and annual cultivation; that he had used the land outside of his inclosure for pasturing stock, and had certain improvements thereon, such as irrigating ditches, hog pen, etc.

The defendants’ testimony tended to prove that Yorba’s pretended in closure was only of about twenty acres; that his fence was insufficient to turn stock, and that the larger part of it was wholly gone prior to the entry of their grantors in December, 1866.

It also appeared that during the time Yorba was claimed to have had possession of the land in controversy he became the owner of more than three hundred and twenty acres of land which he still held, though, according to his testimony, he had transferred the title to his wife.

It is insisted by counsel that in view of the testimony the jury ought to have found for the plaintiff, and that the instruction was calculated to confuse and mislead them.

We think it clear, if the jury had found for the plaintiff »for at least so much of the demanded premises as had been [200]

Slaughter v. Fowler

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief