Login
  • Bookmark
  • PDF
  • Share
  • CaseIQ

Churchill v. Anderson

Supreme Court of California
Jul 1, 1878
Judgment
Subsequent
References
CaseIQ
Case Information
CITATION CODES
citation codes
DOCKET NO.

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.

ACTS

No Acts

See more information ... Less ...

         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.

© 2026 Gauge Data Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

x

Alert

Please log in or sign up for a free trial to access this feature.
Sign Up Login
x