Buckley v. Howe
Before: Fox
Synopsis
Patent — Enforcement of Trust — Fraud — Mistake of Land Department. — Equity will decree and enforce a trust in favor of a party who shows a better right to land, a patent for which had been procured by the fraud of the defendant, and through mistake and misconception of the law on the part of the officers of the land department of the government.
Id.—Equitable Title of Plaintiff—Right to Control Legal Title. — In such a case, it is not enough to show that the defendant was not entitled to have received the patent, hut the plaintiff must show that he himself occupies such a status toward the property as entitles him to control the legal title.
Id. — Pre-emption Claim — Pleading — Conclusion of Law—Pacts Conferring Prior Right. —- Where the plaintiff in such action claims priority of right over the defendant to become the purchaser from the government, and to receive a patent for the land in controversy, under a pre-emption claim, it is not enough to allege be had or has such right, as that allegation is a mere conclusion of law; but the plaintiff must show the state of facts conferring such right, and also that he took the legal steps to avail himself thereof.
Id. — Homestead Entry — Rejected Application—Failure to Appeal or Contest Issuance of Patent. — Where the application for a homestead entry, under which the plaintiff claims, was rejected, and no appeal was prosecuted from the order of the register and receiver rejecting the same, and no further steps were taken to secure its approval, or to contest the issuance of the patent to the defendant, who proved up and paid for the land as a pre-emption claimant, the plaintiff possesses no right, by virtue of his homestead entry, to control the patent, or to enforce a trust therein.
Id.—Possession of Land Pre-empted by Defendant.— Nor will the fact that the plaintiff claims as an assignee of an actual possessor of the laud pre-empted by the defendant avail the plaintiff, it not appearing that such possessor objected to the defendant’s entry or possession of a portion of the land included in his inclosures, or resisted his pre-emption claim.
Id.— Naked Possession of Public Domain — Acquiescence in Rejected Application.— Neither naked possession of the public .domain, nor a rejected application for leave to enter it, under whatever law it may be made, if the rejection is acquiesced in, and not appealed from, will give any such right or title as will enable the claimant successfully to attack or control a patent issued by the government to another claimant.
Amendment of Complaint after Demurrer Sustained—Discretion — Failure to Except — Objection on Appeal.—The privilege of amending a complaint after the trial of the issue of law, raised by demurrer, is in the discretion of the trial court, and where the demurrer is sustained without leave to amend, and nothing appears in the record to show an abuse of discretion, or that the plaintiff applied to the trial court for leave to amend, or took an exception to a refusal of the court to grant such leave, it is too late to raise the objection for the first time on appeal that the court failed to grant it.
Fox, J. —• This is a hill in equity to procure a decree that the defendant holds the title to certain lands in Marin County, for which he procured patent as a preemptor, in trust for plaintiff, on the ground that plaintiff had a better right thereto, and that defendant procured the patent by fraud, and through mistake and misconception of the law on the part of the officers of the land department of the government.
That a patent may be attacked in this way, and such relief be had in a proper case, has been held in very many cases. (Bludworth v. Lake, 33 Cal. 256; Eversdon v. Mayhew, 65 Cal. 163; Hosmer v. Wallace, 47 Cal. 461; Rutledge v. Murphy, 51 Cal. 388; Plummer v. Brown, 70 Cal. 544; Sanford v. Sanford, 13 Pac. Rep. 602; Johnson v. Towsley, 13 Wall. 72; Moore v. Robbins, 96 U. S. 530; Smelting Co. v. Kemp, 104 U. S. 636.) And such a ruling is in accord with section 2224 of the Civil Code.
[601]But in such a case it is not enough to show that the defendant was not entitled to have received the patent. Plaintiff must also show that she herself occupies such a status towards the property as entitles her to control the legal title. (Plummer v. Brown, 70 Cal. 544.) If she claims priority of right to become the purchaser, and to receive the patent, it is not enough to allege that she had or has such right, for that is a mere conclusion of law; but she must show the state of facts which gave her the right, and also the facts showing that she took the legal steps to avail herself of such right. (Aurrecoechea v. Sinclair, 60 Cal. 532.)
The allegations of the complaint tending to show that the defendant was not entitled to pre-empt the land, that the same was not at the time subject to pre-emption, and that he was not entitled to have or receive the patent are, in our judgment, sufficient to constitute a 'cause of action in that behalf, and to put the defendant to his defense, so far as that branch of the case is concerned; but they show the legal title to be vested in the defendant, and before he can be called upon to defend that title against the plaintiff’s allegations of fraud, or be adjudged to hold it in trust for plaintiff, she must show a better right to have received the patent. She cannot recover on the weakness of defendant’s right alone, but must do so on the strength of her own.
On this branch of the case the complaint sets out a series of facts tending to show that at the time of the filing of the township plat the plaintiff had a priority of right to purchase the lands in question, under the act of July 23, 1866, to settle land titles in California, on the ground that she was a bona fide purchaser, and in possession, under a Mexican grant from which her lands had been excluded under the final survey; but the complaint failed to show the subsequent acts on her part necessary to preserve her right, and on the hearing she abandons all claim of right on that ground.
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)