City of San Jose v. Shaw (1872) · DecisionDepot

City of San Jose v. Shaw

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

California Supreme Court Jul 1, 1872Published

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the defendant failed to qualify as a bona fide settler under the Act of April 2d, 1866, because he did not allege residence on the premises, and found no procedural error in the lower court's handling of the case.

Issues

Whether the defendant qualified as a bona fide settler under the Act of April 2d, 1866.
Whether the court erred in hearing argument at chambers after the cause was submitted.
Whether the court erred in refusing to file written findings without a timely request.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“It does not appear that the defendant was a bona fide settler upon the demanded premises.”

“The record shows that the cause was submitted in Court, and there was, therefore, no error in hearing argument at chambers, and thereupon deciding the case.”

“Nor was .there error in refusing to file written findings,- no request therefor having been entered in the minutes of the Court at the time of the submission of the cause.”

Synopsis

Bona Fide Settler.—A party who claims the benefit of the Act of April 2d, 1866, staying proceedings in actions for the recovery of land embraced within the exterior limits of unsurveyed Mexican or Spanish grants, must show that he was a bona fide settler upon the demanded premises, dwelling thereon.

Argument at Chambers.—After a cause has been submitted in the Court, it is not error to hear argument at chambers, and thereupon to decide the case.

Findings.—It is not error to refuse to file written findings when no request therefor was entered in the minutes of the Court at the time of the submission of the cause, although the attorney verbally requested that written findings be filed.

By the Court: It does not appear that the defendant was a bona fide settler upon the demanded premises. In his answer he alleged only that he had been for fifteen years last past in the exclusive possession and actual occupation thereof, without any allegation that he had resided thereon. He was, therefore, not within the provisions of the Act of April 2d, 1866 (Acts 1865-6, p. 772).

The record shows that the cause was submitted in Court, and there was, therefore, no error in hearing argument at chambers, and thereupon deciding the case.

[180]Nor was .there error in refusing to file written findings,- no request therefor having been entered in the minutes of the Court at the time of the submission of the cause.

Judgment and order affirmed. -

City of San Jose v. Shaw

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief