People v. Blake

California Supreme Court Jun 23, 1890 No. No. 13370Published

Before: Belcher, Works

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the appellant lacked standing to challenge the judgment because his deed, executed before the grantor acquired any interest in the land, did not convey the subsequently acquired certificate of purchase, and further, that the judgment could not be attacked by motion sixteen years after its rendition.

Issues

Whether a deed executed before the grantor acquired an interest in state land conveys a subsequently acquired certificate of purchase.
Whether a judgment may be vacated by motion sixteen years after its entry.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“In Cadierque v. Duran, 49 Cal. 356, it was held that a party who has only filed an application with the surveyor-general to purchase state land has acquired no right in the land which he can transfer to another.”

“A judgment cannot be attacked in this informal way years after its rendition.”

Synopsis

Notice to Vacate Judgment —Lapse of Time — Omission of Proof of Service of Process — Recital in Judgment. —People v. Harrison, ante, p. 007, affirmed to the point that a judgment not void on its faee, and containing a recital of due service of process, cannot be set aside on motion years after its rendition.

Id.—Vacating Foreclosure of School Certificate — Motion by Successor in Interest — Failure to Prove Title. — A motion to vacate a decree foreclosing the interest of the holder of a certificate of purchase of school-lands by one who claims to he successor in interest of the defendant will not be entertained if the moving party fails to prove his title as such successor.

Id. — Dhisii of Sciiool-lands bf.fore Certificate of Purchase. — A deed of grant of school-lands, made five months before the certificate of purchase was issued, it not appearing that any payment had been made upon the land by the grantor, conveys no interest in the land, and will not support a motion by the grantee to vacate a judgment foreclosing the certificate of purchase against the grantor.

Id. — Deed of Grant Made Prior to Code — After-acquired Title. — A mere deed of grant of school-lands, made prior to the code, by a grantor having at the time of the grant no transferable interest in the land, and not purporting to convey the same in fee-simple absolute, did not bind a title to such land afterwards acquired by the grantor from the state.

,Id. — Record of Deed — Lapse of Time — Presumptions upon Appeal. — When such motion is made sixteen years after the judgment of foreclosure, by one claiming under a deed made twenty years prior to the motion, and the motion is denied, and the moving party fails to make it appear in the transcript on appeal that his deed was recorded, the presumption is, that it was never recorded, and that the land may have been sold to other parties, who may have purchased in good faith, and may have improved and occupied it for many years.

Works, J. This case was heard in Department Two, and affirmed. A rehearing was granted. After further argument and consideration of the case, we adhere to the conclusion reached by the Department. (People v. Harrison, ante, p. 607, opinion this day filed.)

Order affirmed.

Sharpstein, J., Fox, J., and McFarland, J., concurred.

The following is the opinion, above referred to, rendered on the 11th of January, 1890: —

Belcher, C. C. This action was commenced on the twenty-seventh day of July, 1872, to foreclose the interest of the defendant, Blake, in a certain half-section of school-land situate in the county of Fresno, and to annul the certificate of purchase therefor, issued to him on the twelfth day of February, 1869. Summons was issued and placed in the hands of the sheriff of the county, [613]and on the first day of August following was returned by him with his certificate “that after due diligence the therein-named defendant cannot be found within the county.” An affidavit -was then made by the district attorney, setting forth “that the name or residence of the holder of the certificate of purchase described in the above-entitled action is unknown to him; wherefore deponent asks that service of the summons in this action be had by publication,” etc. Upon this affidavit an order was made by the county judge that the summons be served on the defendant by publication in a weekly newspaper published in the county, and “that such publication be made at least once a week for four successive weeks.” The summons was published in the paper designated, as shown by the affidavit of one of its publishers, “four times, beginning with the seventh day of August, 1872, and ending with the twenty-eighth day of August, A. D. 1872.” The defendant made no appearance, and on the sixteenth day of October, 1872, judgment, reciting that the defendant had been duly served with process according to law, was entered by default as prayed for.

The appellant, McDonald, on the twentieth day of July, 1888, made a motion to have this judgment vacated and set aside, on the ground that it was invalid and void, because when it was entered the court had not acquired jurisdiction of the person of the defendant. At the hearing of the motion, "as stated in the bill of exceptions, “counsel for said McDonald produced a conveyance from defendant, Blake, to said McDonald, dated September 24, 1868, for the certificate of purchase and lands described in the complaint, and showed thereby that the said McDonald became, on said date, by grant, the successor in interest of defendant in and to said land and certificate.”

People v. Blake

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief