Churchill v. Anderson

Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Report a problem

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

5984

Attorney(S)

Moore, Laine & Leib, for Appellant, cited Sutton v. Fasset , 51 Cal. 14; Bourne v. Chism , 48 Cal. 471; Hestres v. Brannan , 37 Cal. 388. C. C. Stephens and Spencer & Rankin, for Respondent, argued that the certificate of purchase is prima facie evidence of title, citing True v. Thompson , 42 Cal. 296; Rush v. Casey , 39 Cal. 344; Stanway v. Rubio , 51 Cal. 45; Hastings v. Jackson , 46 Cal. 244.

Are you a practicing lawyer?

Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.

Upload pleading to use the new AI search

Click here to upload

Cites

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

5984

Attorney(S)

Moore, Laine & Leib, for Appellant, cited Sutton v. Fasset , 51 Cal. 14; Bourne v. Chism , 48 Cal. 471; Hestres v. Brannan , 37 Cal. 388. C. C. Stephens and Spencer & Rankin, for Respondent, argued that the certificate of purchase is prima facie evidence of title, citing True v. Thompson , 42 Cal. 296; Rush v. Casey , 39 Cal. 344; Stanway v. Rubio , 51 Cal. 45; Hastings v. Jackson , 46 Cal. 244.

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Please sign up to generate summary.

Z. CHURCHILL v. A. F. ANDERSON

OPINION By the Court:

It appears from the findings that when this action was commenced the land in controversy [lieu land] had not been listed over by the United States to this State; and it has been frequently decided by this Court that the State acquires no title which it can convey to a purchaser until the land has been listed over. It follows that when the action was commenced the plaintiff had no title.

Judgment reversed, and cause remanded for a new trial.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

Z. CHURCHILL v. A. F. ANDERSON

Comments