Semple v. Hagar

13 Citing cases

  1. Hagar v. Lucas

    29 Cal. 309 (Cal. 1865)   Cited 4 times

    D. Semple and H. G. Burnett, for Appellants.           George Cadwalader, for Respondent, contra, cited Semple v. Hagar, 27 Cal. 163.          JUDGES: Rhodes, J. Sawyer, J., concurring specially.

  2. Botiller v. Dominguez

    130 U.S. 238 (1889)   Cited 59 times
    Rejecting argument that 1851 Act applied only to imperfect, inchoate, and equitable claims because language of Act “includes every person claiming lands in California ‘by virtue of any right or title derived from the Spanish or Mexican government’ ”

    " And so in Semple v. Hagar, 27 Cal. 163, shortly after the decision of Minturn v. Brower, supra, the court used the following language: "The court will take judicial notice that, according to the provisions of the act of Congress of March 3, 1851, every person claiming lands in California, by virtue of any right or title derived from the Spanish or Mexican government, should present his petition for the confirmation of his title to the board of land commissioners, and that such proceedings must be had thereupon, before said board or the District or Supreme Court of the United States, that a final decree confirming the title of the claimant to the land must be entered before the patent for the land could be issued.

  3. United Land Asso. v. Knight

    85 Cal. 448 (Cal. 1890)   Cited 8 times

    The patent is conclusive evidence against a collateral attack that the grant is accurately located by the official survey upon which such patent is based, and that the boundaries therein designated are correct. (Moore v. Wilkinson , 13 Cal. 478; Waterman v. Smith , 13 Cal. 419; Yount v. Howell , 14 Cal. 465; Mott v. Smith , 16 Cal. 533; Teschemacher v. Thompson , 18 Cal. 11; 79 Am. Dec. 151; Leese v. Clark , 18 Cal. 572; 20 Cal. 387; Pioche v. Paul , 22 Cal. 105; Kimball v. Semple , 25 Cal. 440; Semple v. Hagar , 27 Cal. 163; Ward v. Mulford , 32 Cal. 365; Yates v. Smith , 40 Cal. 662; Miller v. Dale , 44 Cal. 579; Chipley v. Farris , 45 Cal. 536; Hale v. Akers , 69 Cal. 160; Wright v. Seymour , 69 Cal. 122; United States v. Flint, 4 Saw. 61; affirmed, sub nom.United States v. Throckmorton , 98 U.S. 61; Manning v. San Jacinto Tin Co ., 7 Saw. 418; United States v. San Jacinto Tin Co ., 10 Saw. 639; affirmed, 125 U.S. 273; West v. Cochran, 17 How. 403; Stanford v. Taylor, 18 How. 412; Beard v. Federy, 3 Wall. 491; Maxwell Land Grant Case , 121 U.S. 325, 379, 381.) This conclusiveness attaches to such a patent as against all the world except the "third persons" mentioned in the act of March 3, 1851; but as already shown, and as was rightly decided in People v. San Francisco , 75 Cal. 388, the state and its grantees in this case are not such "third persons."

  4. Eversdon v. Mayhew

    85 Cal. 1 (Cal. 1890)   Cited 13 times

             The complaint states only a cause of action in ejectment, and the court erred in denying defendant's motion to strike out the allegations looking to equitable relief. The part sought to be stricken out shows no ground for equitable relief, as the complaint merely alleges "that said certificate of title [from the county judge] was obtained by said Henry Wasson through fraud and misrepresentation, for the purpose of defrauding the plaintiff," and alleges no facts constituting the fraud. (Kent v. Snyder , 30 Cal. 667; Castle v. Bader , 23 Cal. 76; Oakland v. Carpentier , 21 Cal. 661; Simple v. Hager , 27 Cal. 163.) The former appeal did not estop the defendant from insisting on this motion.

  5. Spring Valley Water Works v. City and County of San Francisco

    82 Cal. 286 (Cal. 1890)   Cited 43 times
    In Spring Valley Waterworks v. City of San Francisco, 82 Cal. 286, 22 P. 910, 1046, the supreme court of California held that this provision of the constitution of the state did not contemplate or require notice to be given to persons or corporations to be affected by the fixing of the water rates to be charged by them.

    This is held in many cases decided by this court. This course of decision commenced at an early date in this state, as in Gushee v. Leavitt , 5 Cal. 160, 63 Am. Dec. 116, decided in 1885; Kinder v. Macy , 7 Cal. 207, decided in 1857, and continued in Kohner v. Ashenauer , 17 Cal. 580; Meeker v. Harris , 19 Cal. 289; 79 Am. Dec. 215; Castle v. Bader , 23 Cal. 76; Semple v. Hager , 27 Cal. 163; Hager v. Shindler , 29 Cal. 60; Kent v. Snyder , 30 Cal. 674; Perkins v. Center , 35 Cal. 713; and many other cases which can be found by reference to the digest.          Dow v. Beidelman , 125 U.S. 680, is a strong authority to support the contention herein put forth.

  6. Green v. Hayes

    70 Cal. 276 (Cal. 1886)   Cited 6 times

             There are many averments in the complaint of fraud, conspiracy, and fraudulent acts on the part of the defendant's grantor, but they cannot be regarded, because there are no particulars of the fraud showing what it was, and how it was perpetrated. (United States v. Atherton , 102 U.S. 372; Semple v. Hagar , 27 Cal. 163; Kent v. Snyder , 30 Cal. 666.)          Besides, whatever defects or irregularities there may have been in Jaughin's application to purchase the land from the state, they were cured by the issuance of the patent, and cannot be called in question in this action, where the plaintiff is not seeking to obtain the state's title.

  7. 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, if not a conveyance, being a record of the government, establishes the facts therein recited, and determines the prior existence of all facts which necessarily precede the issuance of the patent. (Semple v. Hagav , 27 Cal. 163; Heckman v. Boffman, Hardin's Rep. 362; Jackson v. Wilcox, 1 Scam. 344.) The legal presumption being that public officers have performed their duty, the existence of the patent raises the presumption that the governor and register made the proper certificate of reclamation.

  8. Sacramento Savings Bank v. Hynes

    50 Cal. 195 (Cal. 1875)   Cited 13 times

    The authorities on this subject we think conclusive. We refer to the following cases in the California Reports: City of Oakland v. Carpentier , 21 Cal. 642; Castle v. Bader , 23 Cal. 75; Semple v. Hager , 27 Cal. 163: Kent v. Snyder , 30 Cal. 666.          The two latter cases seem to be especially in point.

  9. Pownall v. Hall

    45 Cal. 189 (Cal. 1873)   Cited 1 times

    (Castle v. Baden , 23 Cal. 75; Kent v. Snyder , 30 Cal. 666; Oakland v. Carpentier , 21 Cal. 641.) Where the general charge of fraud is based upon false suggestions, fraudulent concealment, and misrepresentations, the acts of fraud and misrepresentation on which the general charge is based must be specified in the complaint, or it will not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. (Semple v. Hager , 27 Cal. 163.)          We contend that such short payment would not of itself make redemption void.

  10. Yates v. Smith

    40 Cal. 662 (Cal. 1871)   Cited 4 times

    Though all the evidence may be set out in the transcript, this Court will not, on an appeal from the judgment, consider its weight or effect, or undertake to determine what facts were deducible therefrom, but will presume that everything necessary to sustain the judgment was found by the Court, and that the findings were fully supported by the evidence.          The case of Semple v. Hagar (27 Cal. 163), was a direct attack on Jimeno patent, and was commenced to " set aside the patent for the Jimeno grant, or to avoid so much of it as covered lands within the Colus grant," on the ground that the Mexican Government had granted to Jimeno, previous to the grant of the Jimeno Rancho, two ranches containing twelve leagues. This Court held that the question whether or not Jimeno was competent to take the Jimeno grant had been judically determined by the proper Court of the United States, in the proceedings for the confirmation and patent of the Jimeno grant, and that this Court has no authority or jurisdiction to review the decisions of the Federal Courts.