Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

ROBERT L. CULPEPPER, Appellant, v. JAMES M. OCHELTREE, Respondent.

THE COURT.

The appeal herein was taken from a judgment of the superior court of Riverside County dismissing plaintiff's complaint after demurrer sustained and plaintiff refused to amend. This case was submitted on the briefs filed in McLaren v. Fleischer, ante, p. 607, [ 185 P. 967]. The only difference between the two cases is that the defendant herein received notice on January 13, 1909, that he had been successful in his contest and was awarded a preference right to enter the land within thirty days after it should be restored to entry. The defendant in McLaren v. Fleischer received a similar notice on February 11, 1909 — the former notice coming within the time section 7 of the rules and regulations of the Land Department of June 6, 1905, were in force, and the latter after section 7 had been superseded by section 6 of the rules and regulations of January 19, 1909.

In view of what we have said in McLaren v. Fleischer, this difference in the time of receipt of notice is immaterial, and, therefore, upon the authority of that case the demurrer herein is sustained.

Judgment affirmed.

Hearing in Bank denied.

All the Justices concurred.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

CULPEPPER v. OCHELTREE
(Dec 1, 1919)