The Placer herald., 1863-11-07
IMPORTANT CASES IN SAN JOAQUIN
COUNTY,

The Stockton Independent has the follow
ing in reference to some important cases
lately decided in the Supreme Court, and
which concern heavy landed interests in San
Joaquin county:
We noticed in the Sacramento Union a
few days ago, among the proceedings of the
Supreme Court, q notice that rehearino
had been granted in the cases OF Terry VS..
Megerle, Bours vs.. Walsh, and Athearn VS..
Poppe. knowing that those cases were
tried in the District Court of this county,
and that the principle involved in the deci-
sion OF those cases was one that affected the
title to large quantity of land in this
vicinity, we have taken some pains to get
correct account Of the matter. One of the
counsel for the Defendants has kindly fur.
nIshed us with the following facts: The
facts are the same in the three cases, and by
stipulation OF attorneys the case of Bouers
VS.. Welsh and Athearn vs.. Poppe were to
abide the decision of Terry vs. Megere.-
Before the survey of the public lands, Megerle
and Terry each settled upon portion of the
public domain, and fenced it in and cutivat-
ed it, their fences adjoining each other.-
When the land was surveyed, it was found
that each occupied portions of the same
quarter section. Terry located the whole
quarter section with school land warrant.
Megerle, as soon AS the plats were returned
to the United States Land Office, filed pre-
emptlon claim upon the same quarter section.
A contest was had between Terry and Me-
gerle before the Register and Receiver, the
Commissioner of the General Land Office,
and before the Secretary of the Interior, who
finally decided that Megerle was entitled to
the land, and got his certificate of purchase.
In the meantime Terry preferred his title
under the State law, and got a patent to the
land from the State of California. He then
brought an action of ejectment against
Megerle to recover possession of the whole
quarter section, and in defense, Megerle
pleaded the facts above stated. Upon the
trial before Judge Creaner, the ruling of the
Court was, that the facts pleaded constituted
no defense to the action, and judgment was
rendered for Terry to recover possession of
the land. From this judgment defendant
appealed, and at the Ju y term Of the Su-
preme Court, the judgment of the Court be.
low WAS approved, the opinion being deliver
ed by Justice Crocker and concurred in by
Justice Cope. Not being satisfied with the
reasoning Of the Court in rendering the
decision, counsel filed petition for re-
hearing, which was granted. The case will
now 60 upon the calendar of the Supreme
Court, at the January term, 1864, and be
heard by the Judges lately elected, whose
decision will be looked for with considerable
interes.. The real question to be decided by
these cases, we are informed, is this: Can a
man who has settled upon lands under the
prelenption laws Of the United States, and
complied with all the requirements Of those
laws, and whose claim has been recognized
as valid pre- emption right by the officers
of the Government appointed to decide upon
conflicting claims to public land, successfully
defend his possession against one who holds
patent from the State of California before
he receives patent from the United States?
The decision of the Court was that he could
not; but as relhearing is granted, it would
seem to indicate that there might be a
different result upon a re-argument of the
case.