Sherman v. Wrinkle

California Supreme Court Jul 22, 1898 No. L. A. No. 411Published

Before: Fleet

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. An applicant's good-faith, unintentional mistake in describing an acreage excess in an application for unsurveyed state lands does not invalidate the application, as the official survey determines the permissible purchase area.

Issues

Whether an unintentional error in the estimated acreage of an application for unsurveyed state lands renders the application void under the Act of 1893.
Whether an applicant's statement regarding the total acreage of state lands owned is falsified by an inadvertent survey error.

Disposition. reversed and remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The very terms of the act refute the idea that it was the intention to require the applicant to state the precise and exact quantity of land embraced in the exterior lines of his description.”

“The fact that the description in his application may inadvertently, or by mistake, include more than the amount of land which he is entitled to purchase, is not in any way inconsistent with the idea that he is nevertheless seeking in good faith”

“Of course the mere mistake of the surveyor in including an excess of land within the lines of his survey did not affect or defeat the defendant’s right to purchase to the limit authorized under the statute.”

Synopsis

State Lands Uncovered by Recession of Lake— Application before Survey—Metes and Bounds—Excess of Acreage.—An application made in good faith and in proper form for the purchase of six hundred and forty acres of land uncovered by the recession of an inland lake, which had not been previously surveyed or sectionized, is not vitiated by an excess of acreage in the land described in the application by metes and bounds.

Id.—Intention of Legislature—Accurate Description not Required.—It was not the intention of the legislature to require the applicant for a proper quantity of unsurveyed lands to state the precise acreage included in a description by metes and bounds in the application; but the requirement of such a description negatives the necessity of exactitude in the matter of quantity contained therein, and requires no more than an approximate estimate thereof.

Id. — Good Faith of Applicant—Official Survey—Ascertainment of Quantity.—Where the applicant is seeking in good faith to purchase no more land than the law allows, the law intends that the quantity which he is entitled to purchase shall be ascertained by the official survey to be made by the county surveyor under the authority of the surveyor general. The surveyor should exclude any excess from the survey, which is intended to constitute the basis for approval of the application.

Id.—Preliminary Survey.—The law does not contemplate nor require a preliminary unofficial survey to be made by the applicant.

Id.—Mistake in Official Survey—Remission of Excess.—A mistake of the surveyor in the official survey of the land, in including, by mistaken calculation, a small excess of land within the lines of his survey, cannot affect or defeat the right of the applicant to purchase to the limit authorized under the statute. The applicant may relinquish and abandon any claim to such excess, and in so doing, does all that he is called upon to do in the premises.

Id.—Falsity in b Application—Findings—Conclusion of Law.—A mistaken estimate of quantity in an application by metes and bounds for six hundred and forty acres of unsurveyed lands, does not fall within the rule respecting false statements in applications for state lands; and a finding of falsity in such application, in the matter of acreage, is of an erroneous concluson of law, which is inconsistent with findings of fact establishing good faith on the part of the applicant.-

VAN FLEET, J. The controversy herein arises from conflicting applications made to the surveyor general of the state to purchase certain unsurveyed lands situated on the margin of Owen’s Lake, in Inyo county, and uncovered by the receding waters of the lake, lying between the present shore or water line and the original meander line previously established by the United States government survey—the applications being made under and in pursuance of “An act regulating the sale of lands uncovered by the recession or drainage of inland lakes,” etc. (Stats. 1893, 341). The features of that act material to our present consideration are:

“Section 1. Any person desiring to purchase any of the lands uncovered by the recession or drainage of the waters of inland lakes and inuring to the state by virtue of her sovereignty, .... shall make an application therefor to the surveyor general of [506]the state, which application shall be accompanied by applicant’s affidavit that he is a citizen of the United States, or has declared his intention to become such, a resident of this state, of lawful age, that he desires to purchase such lands (describing the same by legal subdivisions or by metes and bounds if the legal subdivisions are unknown) under the provisions of this act; that he desires to purchase the same for his own use and benefit, and for the use and benefit of no other person or persons whomsoever, and that he has made no contract or agreement to sell the same, and that he does not own any state lands, which, together with that now sought to be purchased, exceeds six hundred and forty acres.

“Section 2. Upon the filing of said application, when the land has not been sectionized, the surveyor general shall authorize the county surveyor of the county where the whole or the greater portion of the land lies to survey the same, who shall make an actual survey thereof, at the expense of the applicant, establishing four corners to each quarter-section, and connecting the same with a United States survey: he must within thirty days file with the surveyor general a copy, under oath, of his field notes and plat, and a statement, under oath, showing whether or not the land is occupied by any actual settler.”

The defendant’s application and the survey in pursuance thereof were made prior to the filing of plaintiff’s application, and the validity of defendant’s application is the only question which demands consideration, since in the view we take, it determines the rights of the parties. That application, as found by the court and as conceded by respondent, conformed in its statements to all the requirements of the statute, both in form and substance, and, if the material statements therein were true, established defendant’s prior right to purchase the land in dispute.

Sherman v. Wrinkle

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief