Mesmer

Mesmer v. Geith

Good Law
22 F.2d 690·1927 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1593
United States District Court, Southern District of CaliforniaNovember 3, 1927California1,971 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

McCormick, J.

This is a suit in equity, denominated by complainant “to cancel patent,” but in reality to declare defendant to be a trustee holding title to certain lands in section 4, township 4 south, range 7 west S. B. M., in Riverside county, Cal., for complainant.

The bill substantially avers that complainant, by valid discoveries and locations as placer mining claims, was the equitable owner of certain properties in the aforesaid described lands, and that defendant subsequently and fraudulently obtained a patent thereto from the United States as agricultural land. The prayer of the bill is that the patent issued to defendant be canceled,and declared void, and that the title to said land vest in complainant, and that defendant be declared a trustee holding title to said land in trust for plaintiff, and for general relief and costs.

The answer generally denies the validity of complainant’s alleged placer mining discoveries or locations, denies that said lands are mineral in character or valuable for mineral purposes, denies the making of any fraudulent or untrue representations to ob *691 tain a patent to said lands, and in general denies all of the material allegations of the bill of…

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.