Yoakum v. Brower

California Supreme Court Jul 1, 1877 No. No. 5542Published

Before: Coubt

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The Act of March 27, 1872, validates and confirms certificates of purchase for State lands that were previously defective in form or substance, provided no other application for the same land was made prior to the issuance of the certificate. The title vests upon full payment of the purchase price, and minor errors in interest calculations do not invalidate the certificate of purchase.

Issues

Whether the Act of March 27, 1872, validates a certificate of purchase issued to a County Surveyor who was prohibited from purchasing the land at the time of application.
Whether the Act of March 27, 1872, has a retroactive effect to cure defects in land purchase proceedings.
Whether errors in the computation of interest payments impair the validity of a certificate of purchase.

Disposition. reversed and remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The act has, and it was intended that it should have, a retroactive effect.”

“The act, as we construe it, as applied to the facts of this case, renders the certificate of purchase issued to Thomas Baker valid.”

Synopsis

County Surveyor__A County Surveyor is prohibited, by considerations of public policy, from becoming the purchaser from the State of public lands which his official duties require him to survey.

Act of 1872 Legalizing Purchases of State Lands.—The Act of March 27th, 1872, entitled “ An Act for the relief of purchasers of State lands,” is retroactive, and legalizes purchases of State lands made by County Surveyors before its passage, provided payment had been made in whole or in part, and a certificate of purchase had been issued to the applicant before any other application had been made to purchase the same land.

Idem.—Said act validates the certificate of purchase, but the title does not pass until full payment has been made. Whether the title passes upon payment without patent is not decided.

Idem.—Said act does not prescribe the time within which the balance of the purchase-money must be paid, and it must, therefore, be paid as prescribed by the general law.

The Act of March 27th, 1872, (Stats. 1872, p. 587) is not a curative act; it is a grant from the State. It is as follows:

“ Sec. 1. When application has been made to purchase lands from this State, and payment made in whole or in part, and a certificate of purchase or patent has been issued to the applicant, the title of the State to said lands is hereby vested in said applicant or his assigns, upon his making full payment [374]therefor; providing, that no application has been made for the purchase of the same lands prior to the issuance of said certificate of purchase; provided further, that this act shall not apply to school lands except to the amount of three hundred and twenty acres to any one purchaser.”

This statute vests the title in the grantees. No further muniment of title is necessary. No patent is necessary. “ The title of the State is hereby vested.” In the land contests provided for by the statute the legal title is still in the State, and the 'question submitted to the Court is: Who is entitled under the law to a conveyance from the State ?

It was the evident intention of the Legislature, in making the grant, to take away even the power of the State to institute proceedings to recall the title, for the statute provides that when a certificate of purchase or patent has been issued, the title of the State is vested. But in case of patents the title has already .vested, and there must have been some object in inserting such a provision. It is apparent what it is for, when the last proviso is considered, which excepts from the operation of the act more than three hundred and twenty acres of school lands. But the statute had provided for nearly twenty years that one purchaser should not be allowed, directly or indirectly, to purchase more than three hundred and twenty acres of school lands. It seems evident, therefore, that there was only one fraud upon the 'State which was guarded against, to wit, getting more than three hundred and twenty acres school lands. All others were condoned.

The Legislature never could have intended anything more than to refer questions of law as to who is legally entitled to purchase to the Courts by the provision of the Political Code referring to land contests.

Stetson & Houghton, for Appellant Brower.

Stewart & Greathouse, J. W. Freeman, and H. Fdgerton, for Respondent.

Yoakum v. Brower

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief