Rhodes v. Craig

21 Cal. 419
CourtCalifornia Supreme Court
DecidedJuly 1, 1863
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 21 Cal. 419 (Rhodes v. Craig) 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
Rhodes v. Craig, 21 Cal. 419 (Cal. 1863).

Opinion

Field, C. J. delivered the opinion of the Court

Cope, J. concurring.

It is difficult to perceive upon what ground the order staying proceedings in this action can rest, except the bare possibility that the officers of the General Land Office at Washington may come to a different conclusion from that of the authorities of the State as to the validity of the location of the school warrant upon which the patent to Doll was issued. But even if such a conclusion should be reached, no defense based thereon could be interposed to the present action. Until an entry on behalf of the inhabitants of the town of Red Bluff is made, or a patent of the General Government is issued for the benefit of such inhabitants, the defendants will not be [423]*423in a position even to contest the efficacy of the patent to Doll. As we said in Doll v. Meador, (16 Cal. 331) “ until some one appears prepared to trace title to himself from a common or paramount source, parties who are clothed with the solemn evidence of title furnished by the patent of the State may rest in security, without fear of any successful disturbance in the enjoyment of the property held by them, whether that property be a portion of the school lands or swamp lands granted to the State by the General Government.”

As appears from the report of the case from which this citation is made, the time within which, under the Act of Congress of May 23d, 1844, an entry could be made for the benefit of the inhabitants of the town of Red Bluff, had expired years before the patent to Doll was issued.

The difficulty, however, with the present case is that no appeal lies from the order of the Court. It is not an injunction against parties in another action; it is a simple order staying proceedings in the same action. The remedy of the plaintiff is not by appeal, • but by application for a mandamus to compel the Court to proceed.

Appeal dismissed.

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

Related

Stearns v. Los Angeles City School District
244 Cal. App. 2d 696 (California Court of Appeal, 1966)
Bailey v. Fosca Oil Co., Ltd.
211 Cal. App. 2d 307 (California Court of Appeal, 1962)
Blaine County Natioanl Bank v. Jones
262 P. 509 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1927)
Hughan v. Grimes
62 P. 326 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1900)
State ex rel. Isaacson v. Judge of Civil District Court
34 La. 74 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1882)
Avery v. Superior Court
57 Cal. 247 (California Supreme Court, 1881)
Figg v. Handley
52 Cal. 244 (California Supreme Court, 1877)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
21 Cal. 419, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rhodes-v-craig-cal-1863.