Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

65 Cal. 92

McCoy v. Byrd

California Supreme Court

Decided February 28, 1884

California Supreme Court · decided 1884-02-28

The action was brought upon a contest originating in the State land office, concerning the rights of the parties to purchase a tract of swamp and overflowed land, and which was referred by the register of that office to the Superior Court for determination, under the provisions of section 3414 of the Political Code.

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently October 1886

1 state decisions

Relies on Woods v. Sawtelle · Hildebrand v. Stewart · Botsford v. Howell

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1884-02-28

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Ross, J.

¶1It is well settled that an applicant seeking to purchase land from the State must set out in his affidavit the facts required by the statute to be stated therein. (Botsford v. Howell, 52 Cal. 158; Hildebrand v. Stewart, 41 Cal. 387; Woods v. Sawtelle, 46 Cal. 389.) The statute under which the plaintiff’s application is made (Pol. Code, § 3443) requires the affiant to state, among other things, that he knows the land applied for and the exterior bounds thereof, and knows, of his own knowledge, that there are no settlers thereon; or, if there are, that the land has been segregated more than six months by authority of the United States. From the affidavit of the plaintiff it does not appear whether there are or are not settlers on the land which he seeks to purchase. The courts cannot hold immaterial, matters which the statute declares must be stated.

¶2Judgment affirmed.

¶3McKinstry, J., and McKee, J., concurred.

/65/cal/92 · .json · Public domain