Tarbat

Irvine v. Tarbat

Good Law
105 Cal. 237·1894 Cal. LEXIS 1143·38 P. 896
Supreme Court of CaliforniaDecember 26, 1894No. 18286California1,276 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Searls, J.

This is what would formerly have been termed an action of ejectment to recovera small tract of land, parcel of one hundred and forty-three and twenty-three one-hundredths acres patented to the plaintiff October 13, 1890, by the government of the United States, situate at or near Carson Hill, county of Calaveras, state of California.

The defense set up was that the locus in quo was and is a part of the townsite of Carson Hill, and as such was not subject to patent by plaintiff.

The statute of limitations was also pleaded in bar of the action, but as such action was instituted April 13, 1891, within six months next after the issuance of patent, the plea cannot prevail, if plaintiff’s patent was valid to convey title.

Plaintiff had judgment, from which and from an order denying her motion for a new trial defendant appeals.

Plaintiff introduced his patent to the land, proved that the land in dispute was included therein, and rested.

*241 Defendant, among other testimony introduced for the purpose of proving a townsite, offered in evidence, and, against the objection of plaintiff was permitted to introduce, the proceedings had in the United States land-office, from which it…

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.