Owens v. Jackson

9 Cal. 322
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
DecidedJuly 1, 1858
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 9 Cal. 322 (Owens v. Jackson) 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
Owens v. Jackson, 9 Cal. 322 (Cal. 1858).

Opinion

Burnett, J., delivered the opinion of the Court—Terry, C. J., concurring.

This was an action to "recover the possession of land claimed by the plaintiff, under a patent from this State. The land was sold and patented under the provisions of the act of the Legislature, of April 28th, 1855, entitled “An Act to provide for the sale of the Swamp and Overflowed Land belonging to this State.” (Wood’s Digest, 517.) The defendant demurred to the complaint upon the ground that it did not show that the land had been surveyed and patented to this State. The demurrer was sustained, and the plaintiffs appealed. .

The only question necessary to be determined is whether this State had the right to dispose of the swamp and overflowed lands granted to her by the act of Congress, of September 28th, 1850, prior to a patent from the United States, so as to convey to the patentee a present title as against a trespasser. ’

The first section of the act of Congress provides that “ the [324]*324swamp and overflowed lands” within the State of Arkansas “ shall be, and the same are, hereby granted to said State.” By the fourth section, the provisions of the act are extended to other States, in which" such lands may be situated.

The language of the act is in the present tense “are granted,” and conveyed to the State a present interest in the lands. The lands granted are not described in the act by metes and bounds, but are designated by the description of “swamp and overflowed lands.” This description is sufficiently certain to give the State a present prima facie right.

It is true that the second section of the act of Congress makes provision for the issuing of a patent to the State, “ and on that patent the fee-simple to said lands shall vest in the State, subject to the disposal of the Legislature thereof.”

But this provision does not conflict with the view we have taken. The act of Congress describes the land, not by specific boundaries, but by its quality; and is a present legislative grant of all the public lands within the State, of the quality mentioned. The patent is matter of evidence and description by metes and bounds. The office of the patent is to make the description of the lands definite and conclusive, as between the United States and the State. (Summers v. Dickinson, April Term, 1858.)

Judgment reversed, and the case remanded for further proceedings.

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

Related

Perry v. State of California
293 P.2d 480 (California Court of Appeal, 1956)
San Joaquin & Kings River Canal & Irrigation Co. v. Worswick
203 P. 999 (California Supreme Court, 1922)
Foss v. Johnstone
110 P. 294 (California Supreme Court, 1910)
Wells v. Pennington County
48 N.W. 305 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1891)
Miller v. Tobin
16 P. 161 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1887)
Tubbs v. Wilhoit
14 P. 361 (California Supreme Court, 1887)
Wright v. Roseberry
121 U.S. 488 (Supreme Court, 1887)
San Francisco Sav. Union v. Irwin
28 F. 708 (U.S. Circuit Court, 1886)
Megerle v. Ashe
27 Cal. 322 (California Supreme Court, 1865)
Kernan v. Griffith
27 Cal. 87 (California Supreme Court, 1864)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
9 Cal. 322, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/owens-v-jackson-cal-1858.