Figg

Figg v. Hensley

Good Law
1877 Cal. LEXIS 101·52 Cal. 299
Supreme Court of CaliforniaJuly 1, 1877No. 5023California378 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Crockett, J.

The suspension of the entry does not invalidate the entry, nor preclude the right to a patent. The right of the purchaser subsists, and the land does not revert to the Government until the entry is finally adjudged to be invalid. (Rev. Stats. U. S. secs. 2450, 2454.)

The duplicate receipt establishes a right of possession in the holder. (Byres v. Nail, 43 Cal. 260 ; McDonald v. Edmunds, 44 Cal. 330 .)

The duplicate is primary evidence of legal title, and may only be overcome by proof that when the pre-emption was filed the land was in the adverse possession of the adverse party, or others in privity with him. (Code Civil Procedure, secs. 1829,1925.))

*301 W 8. Bucldey, for the Respondent.

It may be conceded, for the purposes of this decision, that the Receiver’s duplicate receipt is “a certificate of purchase ” within the purview of sec. 1925 of the Code of Civil Procedure; and it may also be conceded that the plaintiff, as a bona fide purchaser and holder thereof, for a valuable consideration, will not be affected by the infirmities which would have impaired the effect of the certificate in the hands of Ayres, to whom it was issued. But it appears from the findings that…

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.