Figg

The appellant, by the record, is “ a mere naked intruder, without title or color of right.” The certificate of purchase issued *245 by the United States Land Office is not open to attack by a naked occupant and trespasser. (Code of Civil Procedure, sec. 1925; Doll v. Meador, 16 Cal. 324 -31; Rhodes v. Craig, 21 Cal. 419 ; Wilcox v. Jackson, 13 Peters, 498, 516 .)

The land in controversy is a portion of a sixteenth section, and the plaintiffs title is founded on certificates of purchase issued by the State in due form. The defense relied upon, as to a portion of the land, is, that prior to the purchase from the State, other lands had been selected by the State in lieu of these, and that the lands so selected have been sold by the State, and a patent has been given to the purchaser by the United States. Prima facie the lands included in a sixteenth section belong to the State, with an absolute power of disposition; but under certain conditions, as, for example, if a sixteenth section is included in a confirmed Mexican grant, the State is authorized to select other lands in lieu of those so included in the grant. There was no attempt in this case to overcome the prima facie case…