Carder v. Minturn

28 Cal. 99
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
DecidedApril 15, 1865
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 28 Cal. 99 (Carder v. Minturn) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Carder v. Minturn, 28 Cal. 99 (Cal. 1865).

Opinion

By the Court,

Shafter, J.

Ejectment for about three acres of land situate in the City of Petaluma. The answers contain a general denial and set up the Statute of Limitations. The trial was by the Court— finding and judgment for the defendants. The plaintiff moved for a new trial—the motion was denied and the appeal is from the order of denial and from the judgment.

The plaintiff, to prove his title to the premises in controversy, gave in evidence a patent thereof issued by the State to N. L. Thompson, dated September 6th, 1860, granting the lands as swamp and overflowed. The evidence which the defendants were permitted to introduce to the effect that the larger part of the lands were dry and fit for cultivation, was improperly admitted, inasmuch as the defendants neither brought nor oífered to bring themselves into relations either ’with the State or the United States.

The point is so well settled as to require no discussion. [101]*101(Doll v. Meador, 16 Cal. 295; Terry v. Megerle, 24 Cal. 610; People v. Stratton, 25 Cal. 242; Page v. Hobbs et al., 27 Cal.483.)

But it is insisted for the respondents th^t the plaintiff abandoned his motion for a new trial by refusing to argue it in the Court below. This point is not well taken. The statement sets forth specifically the grounds of the motion—the motion was duly made and submitted—and this includes everything essential to a prosecution of the proceeding.

The objection urged by the respondents, that the lands covered by the patent are within the incorporated City of Petaluma, is of no avail, for the reason that the fact is not apparent on the face of the patent, nor are the respondents in a position to bring it forward by averment.

As to the defense of the Statute of Limitations, there was no evidence in the case tending to sustain it.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Boin v. Spreckels Sugar Co.
102 P. 937 (California Supreme Court, 1909)
Ewbank v. Mikel
91 P. 672 (California Court of Appeal, 1907)
Schieffery v. Tapia
8 P. 878 (California Supreme Court, 1885)
State v. Central Pacific Railroad
17 Nev. 259 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1883)
Chabot v. Tucker
39 Cal. 434 (California Supreme Court, 1870)
Rondell v. Fay
32 Cal. 354 (California Supreme Court, 1867)
Hagar v. Lucas
29 Cal. 309 (California Supreme Court, 1865)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
28 Cal. 99, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carder-v-minturn-cal-1865.