Wright

Wright v. Roseberry

Good Law
1889 Cal. LEXIS 988·81 Cal. 87·22 P. 336
Supreme Court of CaliforniaOctober 10, 1889No. 12811California1,813 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Hayne, J.

Ejectment. The plaintiff was nonsuited at the trial, and appeals from, the' judgment upon a bill of exceptions. The question is, whether the plaintiff’s evidence was sufficient to make a prima facie case. His evidence consisted of two certificates of purchase and certain other documentary evidence tending to show that the land was swamp-land, and certain testimony in relation to said certificates. The case has been before the supreme court of the United States, and that court held that the documents made a prima facie case for the plaintiff. (Wright v. Roseberry, 121 U. S. 517 .) That decision is conclusive in favor of the plaintiff, unless there is some material circumstance which was not presented to or considered by the court. The respondents contend that it now appears that the certificates had been surrendered and canceled, and that they are therefore no longer evidence of title. The certificates were produced at the trial by the surveyor-general, who testified that they had been surrendered when the application for the patent was made, and were then in his office; that patents had been issued for a portion of the land; and that a notice of indorsement had been made upon each…

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.