Collins v. Bartlett
Before: Rhodes
Synopsis
School Land Wabbants.—The location of school land warrants, issued by this State, prior to the survey of the land on which they are located by the United States, is void.
When Purchaser of Land is not a Trustee for Another.—The facts that two parties purchase separate tracts of land from one who had located school land warrants on the same before the land was surveyed by the United States, and which location was consequently void, and that said parties acquired possession of said tracts by virtue of said purchase, do not create the relation of trust or confidence between them, so as to make a subsequent purchase from the United States, of all the land, by one of the parties, as a preemptioner, inure to the benefit of the other party in equity.
Idem.—When two or more persons separately purchase distinct parcels of land from a common grantor, who possesses the same under an invalid title, and one of them afterwards acquires the true title to the whole, he does not hold the true title as trustee for the other, nor is he estopped from denying that the purchase from the holder of the invalid title was void.
Cross-Complaint.—Neither an agreed statement of facts nor a finding of facts can add a material fact to a cross-complaint, for it must fall unless it can stand on its own allegations of facts.
Aot of Congress Confirming State Land Sales.—The Act of Congress of July, 1866, to quiet land titles in California, provides the means by which an invalid location of a State school land warrant on unsurveyed lands may he confirmed, but in order to obtain such confirmation the purchaser must present and prove up his purchase and claim within the time allowed to preemptioners under existing laws. The land will not be certified to the State until the claim is presented and proved up.
Idem.—No title to such lands passes from the United States to the State, or to the purchaser from the State, until the same are certified over to the State by the Commissioner of the General Land Office at Washington.
Idem.—If one holding public land under an invalid location of State school land warrants, made before the passage of the confirmatory Act of Congress of July, 1866, fails to present and prove up Ms claim under said Act, and another, after the passage of said Act, preempts the land and obtains a patent therefor, he acquires the legal title.
Attack on Patent.—A party claiming land under a patent from the United States has the benefit of the presumption that the officers rightly performed all their duties in selling the land and issuing the patent, and it devolves on the party assailing the patent to show that it was issued without authority of law.
Declaratory Statement by Prb-emptioners.—There are some classes of lands subject to preemption which may bo purchased by preemptioners without filing declaratory statements, such as lands reserved for railroad purposes which have been settled on; and one attacking a patent issued to a preemptioner on the ground that no declaratory statement was filed, must show that it belonged to that class of lands to purchase which a declaratory statement is required.
By the Court, Rhodes, J.: This is an action of ejectment. The defendants answered and also filed a cross-complaint.
The equity set up in the cross-complaint is based on these facts: In 1853 Jones & Belden located school land warrants on these and other lands, entered into possession thereof, and made improvements thereon; and in 1858 they sold and con[380]veyed the same to Henning; and in 1861. Henning sold to Howe a tract containing eighty acres, including the two-acre tract—the tract in controversy. In 1863 Howe sold the two-acre tract to Froment; Froment afterwards sold the same to "White; and White sold the same to Younger & Logan, the lessors of defendant Bartlett. Each of the purchasers successively took possession and maintained valuable improvements on that tract. Henning sold to plaintiff one acre of land in 1862; and Howe, in 1864, sold to plaintiff all of the eighty-acre tract except the two-acre tract; and plaintiff" entered, claiming solely under the school land warrant location. In 1867, while the several purchasers under Howe were in possession of the respective parcels claimed by them, the lands were surveyed by the United States, and immediately thereafter the plaintiff applied to preempt and preempted one hundred and sixty acres (which include the lands in suit) and has received a patent therefor. It is alleged “ that the procuring of such patent is in fraud of the rights ” of the defendants.
The location of the school land warrants in 1853, prior to a survey of the land, was void. The authorities on this point are too numerous to require citation. The fact that both the plaintiff and the defendants purchased distinct parcels from the same party, and by virtue thereof acquired the possession of tlieir respective parcels, creates no relation of trust or confidence between them; nor will it render a subsequent purchase by one party of both parcels fraudulent as to the other party, nor make such subsequent purchase inure, in equity, to the benefit of the other party. The facts stated in the cross-complaint show neither that the acquisition of the title by the plaintiff" from the United States was fraudulent in a legal sense, nor that a trust was thereby created in favor of the defendants.
Had it been alleged that between the defendants, or those under whom they claim, and the plaintiff, the relation existed [381]
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)