Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

9 Cal. 322

Owens v. Jackson

California Supreme Court

Decided July 1, 1858

California Supreme Court · decided 1858-07-01

<p>Appeal from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, County of Solano.</p> <p>A statement of the facts appears in the opinion of the Court.</p>

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“describes the land, not by specific boundaries, hut by its quality, and is a legislative grant of all the public lands within the state, of the quality mentioned. The patent is matter of ’evidence . and description by metes and bounds. The office of 'the-patent is to make the description of the lands definite and conclusive as between the United States and the State.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Wright v. Roseberry

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1858-07-01

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 1956

8 state decisions

4018581860187018801890190019101920193019401950decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Burnett, J., delivered the opinion of the Court—Terry, C. J., concurring.

¶1This was an action to "recover the possession of land claimed by the plaintiff, under a patent from this State. The land was sold and patented under the provisions of the act of the Legislature, of April 28th, 1855, entitled “An Act to provide for the sale of the Swamp and Overflowed Land belonging to this State.” (Wood’s Digest, 517.) The defendant demurred to the complaint upon the ground that it did not show that the land had been surveyed and patented to this State. The demurrer was sustained, and the plaintiffs appealed. .

¶2The only question necessary to be determined is whether this State had the right to dispose of the swamp and overflowed lands granted to her by the act of Congress, of September 28th, 1850, prior to a patent from the United States, so as to convey to the patentee a present title as against a trespasser. ’

¶3The first section of the act of Congress provides that “ the *324swamp and overflowed lands” within the State of Arkansas “ shall be, and the same are, hereby granted to said State.” By the fourth section, the provisions of the act are extended to other States, in which" such lands may be situated.

¶4The language of the act is in the present tense “are granted,” and conveyed to the State a present interest in the lands. The lands granted are not described in the act by metes and bounds, but are designated by the description of “swamp and overflowed lands.” This description is sufficiently certain to give the State a present prima facie right.

¶5It is true that the second section of the act of Congress makes provision for the issuing of a patent to the State, “ and on that patent the fee-simple to said lands shall vest in the State, subject to the disposal of the Legislature thereof.”

¶6But this provision does not conflict with the view we have taken. The act of Congress describes the land, not by specific boundaries, but by its quality; and is a present legislative grant of all the public lands within the State, of the quality mentioned. The patent is matter of evidence and description by metes and bounds. The office of the patent is to make the description of the lands definite and conclusive, as between the United States and the State. (Summers v. Dickinson, April Term, 1858.)

¶7Judgment reversed, and the case remanded for further proceedings.

/9/cal/322 · .json · Public domain