Case ID: cal_78/html/0380-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Foote, C. The Court.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

[No. 11657.
    Department One.
    March 13, 1889.]
    J. R. HEBBRON, Respondent, v. THOMAS GRAVES, Appellant.
    Ejectment—State Patent — Borden op Proof. —Whether a state patent to land other than a sixteenth or thirty-sixth section is conclusive or not, it is at least prima facie evidence of title, and if a defendant in ejectment can attack it at all, the burden is on him to show its invalidity.
    Boundary Line—Conflicting Evidence—Review on Appeal.—The main point in controversy being as to the true location of the boundary line between two sections of land, and the evidence, though conflicting, being sufficient to warrant the court below in its findings as to such location, the findings and judgment will not be disturbed.
    Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Monterey County, and from an order denying a new trial.
    The facts are stated in the opinion.
    
      N. A. Dorn, and W. M. R. Parker, for Appellant, cited Knight v. Elliott, 57 Mo. 325; Jacobs v. Moseley, 91 Mo. 457; Alviso v. Vallestero, 52 Cal. 500; Mahoney v. Middleton, 41 Cal. 41; Pope v. Dalton, 31 Cal. 218; Crane v. Ghirardelli, 45 Cal. 235; Brown v. Brackett, 45 Cal. 167.
    
      S. F. Geil, and H. V. Morehouse, for Respondent, cited Roper v. McFadden, 48 Cal. 346; Green v. Chandler, 54 Cal. 626; Lick v. Madden, 36 Cal. 213; Hill v. Smith, 32 Cal. 167; Wilson v. Fitch, 41 Cal. 385.
   Foote, C.

This action is in ejectment. Plaintiff had judgment, from which, and an order denying a new trial, this appeal was taken.

The plaintiff introduced in evidence a certain state patent for the land in dispute. This was objected to by the defendant, on the alleged ground “that no predicate had been laid therefor; that the United States government is the source of all title; and as none of this land is of a sixteenth or thirty-sixth section, there is no proof that the state of California had any interest in the land which could be granted.” Whether such a patent “is conclusive or not, it is at least prima facie valid, and if a defendant in ejectment can attack it at all, the burden is on him to show the invalidity.” (People v. Stratton, 25 Cal. 242; Leviston v. Ryan, 75 Cal. 293, and cases cited.) There is nothing in the record going to show the invalidity of the patent.

The main point in the controversy was as to the true location of the line between two sections of land denominated 19 and 20.

Although the evidence was to some extent conflicting, the court below was warranted in making its findings.

No prejudicial error appearing, we advise that the judgment and order be affirmed.

Belcher, C. C., and Hayne, C., concurred.

The Court.

For the reasons given in the foregoing opinion, the judgment and order are affirmed.

Hearing in Bank denied.