Donley

Donley v. Van Horn

Good Law
1920 Cal. App. LEXIS 270·49 Cal. App. 383·193 P. 514
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 28, 1920Civ. No. 3213.California4,422 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Finlayson, J.

Plaintiff, to whom had been issued a patent to the land in controversy, sued for recovery of the premises and to quiet title. The lower court adjudged plaintiff to be the owner and entitled to possession. From this judgment defendant appeals.

The land, which is situated in Imperial County, has been in the exclusive occupancy of defendant ever since some time prior to December 26, 1911, on which, date he filed in the proper office, viz., the local land office at Los Angeles, his application to make entry under the desert land law. The land is a part of a large tract that, on April 2, 1909, was withdrawn from entfy by the Secretary of the Interior in connection with the Yuma reclamation project, pursuant to authority conferred by the act of June 17, 1902 (32 Stats, at Large, p. 388), commonly known as the Reclamation Act (U. S. Comp. Stats., secs. 4700-4708). This withdrawal was under what is known as the first form of withdrawal; that is, it was the withdrawal of lands that, in the opinion of the Secretary of the Interior, may be needed in the construction apd maintenance of irrigation works. Such a withdrawal amounts to a legislative withdrawal, and is absolute. Until again…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.