Sheehy v. True
Synopsis
Act of Congress, Called “Suscol Act.”—The Act of Congress, approved March 3d, 1863, granting the right of preemption to bona fide purchasers from Vallejo of the Suscol Pancho, or portions thereof, gave to such purchasers the mere privilege of acquiring the title from the United States; and those who failed or refused to exercise that privilege lost all right to claim the benefit of the Act.
Equitable Defense in Ejectment.—One who was a purchaser from Vallejo, and in possession of a portion of the “Suscol Rancho ” prior to the rejection of Vallejo’s claim to the same, and who refused to join with coterminous purchasers in an application to obtain a patent under said Act, and made no effort to avail himself of the privilege granted by said Act, cannot, in ejectment brought against him by such coterminous proprietors, who had obtained a patent for the land he had thus purchased as as equitable defense, convert the plaintiffs into trustees holding the legal title for his benefit, and compel them to convey to him.
By the Court: The equitable defense interposed by the defendant cannot be supported. The Act of Congress commonly called “ the Suscol Act,” afforded the defendant (as being a bona fide purchaser from General Vallejo, and in possession anterior to the rejection of the Vallejo claim,) a mere privilege of acquiring the title from the United States. This privilege, however, he rejected and utterly repudiated. He took no step whatever to acquire the title. Having under the terms of the Act the opportunity to unite with the plaintiffs in proceedings to acquire the title of the United States, he failed to do so, and being applied to by them to join as a coterminous proprietor in the application to the Federal Land Office to .obtain the title, he refused to do so, and this was his attitude until after the patent for the entire tract had been passed to the plaintiffs, and so far as appears, until the latter commenced the present action to obtain the possession of the premises.
[241]There is no principle of equity known to us which would enable the defendant under these circumstances to convert the plaintiffs into trustees of the legal title for his benefit, or divest them of that title in his favor.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded, with directions to dismiss the equitable defense and to try the issues at law.
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)