Leonard v. Darlington

5 Citing cases

  1. People ex rel. Love v. Center

    66 Cal. 551 (Cal. 1885)   Cited 41 times
    In People v. Center, 66 Cal. 551, [5 P. 263, 6 P. 481] (decided in 1885), it was held on this subject that section 738 of the Code of Civil Procedure (enacted in 1872) is like section 254 of the former Practice Act, except that since the adoption of the code the action to quiet title may be brought by one out of possession.

    The patent was not equivalent to a certificate of reclamation. (Leonard v. Darlington , 6 Cal. 124; People v. Coghill , 47 Cal. 361.) The signing of the patent by the register was not a signing by the surveyor general.

  2. Swift v. Swift

    40 Cal. 456 (Cal. 1871)

             The Probate Court is a Court of limited jurisdiction, and therefore cannot take jurisdiction nor administer remedies, other than those given by, and in the manner prescribed by statute. (Grimes Estate v. Morris, 6 Cal. 123; Haynes v. Meek, 10 Cal. 110; Downer v. Smith, 24 Cal. 123.) The Probate Court has no jurisdiction, by statute or otherwise, to take cognizance of a disputed claim against a minor's estate, or the guardian thereof, for necessaries furnished such minors, and adjudicate upon its validity or invalidity.

  3. Board of Education v. Fowler

    19 Cal. 11 (Cal. 1861)   Cited 6 times

    The power is introduced and found to be defective, as containing no authority to execute a deed Is it to be said that the defendant cannot raise that question; but that it is one for the principal and agent to settle? Leonard v. Darlington , 6 Cal. 123, is an authority on this point. If defective deeds should be admitted without objection, none could have been made to the deed in that case.

  4. Oakland v. Carpentier

    13 Cal. 540 (Cal. 1859)   Cited 34 times
    In Oakland v. Carpenter, 13 Cal. 540 -542, the suit was in equity to set aside certain leases on the ground of fraud in procuring the same and for possession.

    The deed and ordinances were void, because five Trustees were elected, and only four qualified. If the Board was first legally constituted by the election and qualification of five members, as required by law, (Act May, 1850,) then a majority could perform any official duty; not otherwise. (Leonard v. Darlington , 6 Cal. 123.) Hence, these deeds and ordinances are void. Where a deed, upon its face, purports to be executed in conformity to law, and the want of authority to execute it does not appear upon the deed, then the Court will declare the deed fraudulent and void, and will direct its cancellation or a reconveyance.

  5. Welch v. Sullivan

    8 Cal. 165 (Cal. 1857)   Cited 16 times
    In Welch v. Sullivan, 8 Cal. 165, the question of the validity of this title was again brought before the Court, and after full argument, Chief Justice Murray delivered an elaborate opinion, in which he maintained the authority of Cohas v. Raisin, both upon principle and upon the doctrine of stare decisis.

    I have stated what is a part of the history of this State, that the decision of Woodworth v. Fulton was never acquiesced in either by the bar or the public; that it was subsequently overruled, and that, since that time, the case of Cohas v. Raisin has often been affirmed by this Court. (See Leonard v. Darlington , 6 Cal. 123, and Dewey v. Lambier , 7 Cal. 347.) The whole community has acted upon the faith of the decisions, and it has probably never entered the brain of any sane man, except, perhaps, that of the appellant, that the rule thus firmly established would be overturned.