Plummer v. Brown
Before: McKee
Synopsis
Public Land—Contest as to Right to Purchase — Conclusiveness of Judgment. — In hearing and determining a contest between rival claimants of the right to purchase public lands of the United States, the officers of the land department act judicially; and their judgments cannot be collaterally assailed in an action at law.
Id.—Title Acquired by Fraud-—■ Trust—Action to Compel Conveyance of Legal Title. — If the successful claimant has acquired, pursuant to the judgment, the legal title affected with any fraud or trust in relation to it, he will be regarded in equity as a trustee of the true owner, who may by a proper proceeding compel a conveyance to himself of the legal title.
Id.—Pleading—Evidence.—In an action by the unsuccessful claimant to compel a conveyance of the legal title, the plaintiff must distinctly allege and clearly prove that he occupies such a status as gives him the right to control the legal title.
Id. — The action was brought by an unsuccessful claimant of the right to purchase certain public land of the United States under the pre-emption and homestead laws, against the successful claimant, to compel the latter to convey the legal title to the plaintiff. The complaint showed that in the contest as to the right to purchase, the land department had decided that the defendant settled upon and occupied the land before the plaintiff entered upon it, and had not abandoned his occupation, and that the plaintiff invaded the occupation of the defendant, and was not a qualified pre-emptor. Held, that the plaintiff was not in a position to control the legal title issued to the defendant.
Id. — Insufficient Allegations of Fraud.—In order to avoid the conclusiveness of the judgment of the land department, the complaint alleged in general, terms that the judgment was based upon certain false, perjured, incompetent, and irrelevant evidence introduced by the defendant, but did not state what the evidence was. Held, that the complaint was insufficient.
McKee, J. The only question for consideration on this appeal is, whether the court below erred in' sustaining a demurrer to the complaint upon the ground that it did not contain facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.
It appears from the allegations contained in the complaint that there was a contest between the plaintiff and John A. Brown before the register and receiver of the United States land-office, about the right to purchase from the United States, under the pre-emption and homestead laws, a tract of public land in Los Angeles County, described as the southeast quarter of section 23 in township 1 south, range 14 west, San Bernardino meridian,—the official plat and map of which had been filed in the year 1875 in the proper United States land-office. The commissioner affirmed the decision. Plummer then appealed to the Secretary of the Interior, and that officer also affirmed the decision; after which there was issued a patent pursuant to the judgment to Brown, confirmatory of his right to the land under the provisions of the homestead law.
Notwithstanding the judgment, the plaintiff insists that the land ought to have been awarded to him, because, as it is alleged, he established his right to purchase it under the laws of the United States by satisfactory proof; and the register and receiver would have awarded it to him if he had not been imposed upon by “false and perjured testimony, ” which misled and deceived him, and biased him to decide in Brown’s favor, upon facts which were found upon “the false and perjured testimony” and “incompetent and irrelevant evidence” given by Brown; which, it is also alleged, the other officers of the land department were likewise fraudulently induced to affirm the judgment in Brown’s favor. Upon these grounds, the plaintiff asks for a decree declaring that Brown holds the legal title to the land in trust for the plaintiff, and. that he be compelled to convey it to the plaintiff.
[546]On the hearing and determination of a contest between two rival claimants of the right to purchase a tract of public land under the land laws of the United States, the register and receiver of the land department acts judicially; and his judgment, especially after it has been affirmed' on appeal, is final and conclusive upon the contestants; so also is the patent issued upon the judgment; neither can be collaterally assailed. (Garland v. Wynn, 20 How. 6; Lytle v. Arkansas, 9 How. 328; Cunningham v. Ashley, 14 How. 382; Barnard v. Ashley, 18 How. 43.)
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)