Naglee

Naglee v. Palmer

Good Law
50 Cal. 641
Supreme Court of CaliforniaJuly 1, 1875No. 4683California331 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Couet, J.

1. The alcalde grant to Tiffany was inoperative. The lands in controversy being a portion of those reserved to the United States for public purposes on the 18th day of May, 1865, did not pass to the city by the decree of the Circuit Court of the United States of that day, confirming to her four square leagues of pueblo lands.

2. The relinquishment of the title of the United States to the city, effected by the act of Congress of July 1, 1870, entitled “An Act to relinquish the interest of the United States in certain lands to the city and county of San Francisco,” did not impart validity to the alcalde grant to Tiffany. The relinquishment effected by that act was upon certain designated trusts to be executed by the city. The *644 holders of alcalde grants, within the relinquished premises, were not among the cestuis que trust mentioned in the act.

3. The only ground upon which the appellant could claim to be a beneficiary under the act of July 1, 1870, already referred to, was that he was in the actual bona fide possession of the premises at the date of the passage of the act, or had been deprived of the possession thereof by the military authorities of the United States. But the…

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.