Los Angeles daily herald. [volume] (Los Angeles [Calif.]) 1873-1876, 1874-03-29
Supreme Court Decisions.
JANUARY TERM, 1874.
YOUNG VS.. sHINN 1892.

YOUNG VS.. sHINN [3, 1927.
STATE LANDs-CERTIFIcA OF PUR.
CHAsE.-The provision in Section
of the act of March Is, 1868, that the
certificate of purchase of State lands
shall be received as prima facie evil
dence of title, applies to all such
certificates issued after the act took
effect. rttef f,..q
BETTER RIGHT TO TITLE IN LAND
Where two persons seek to acquire
the title to the same land, one under
the laws of the State, and the other
under the laws of the United States,
and both proceeded according to
law, the one who first commenced
proceedings to acquire the title has
the better right to 1t. rasf
Appeal from the District Court of
the Seventh Judicial District, Sono-
ma county. The action was eject
ment, and the judgment having pass
ed to the plaintiff, the defendant APP
pealed therefrom and from an order
denying motion for new trial.
The other facts are stated in the opin-
ion. A. Thomas for appellant, Mel
| will johnson for respondent.
| OPINION OF THE COURT Young vs.
Shinn, No. 3,192-Filed March 18th,
1874 The lands in controversy
were selected on the part of the State,
and certificate of location was issued
to the plaintiff in 1868; but as the
lands had not been surveyed by the
United States, the certificate was void.
The official plat of the survey Of the
township was returned to the Register
nft hn Ior "a rn 4 he IF
November, 1865, and on the 9th day of
December, 1865, the plaintiff relocated
the lands; and on the 10th day of
April, 1867, the lands in controversy
were listed to the State. On the 18th
of April, 1870, the Register of the State
Land Office issued to the plaintiff
certificate of purchase, reciting there
in that it appeared from the certificate
of the County Treasurer, bearing date
December 9th, 1865, that the plaintiff
had paid twenty per cent of the pur-
chase money and the interest on the
balance, etc.
The defendant claims the premises
as d part of his homestead claim, taken
up under the act of Congress of May
20, 1852, and produced the receipt
issued to him by the Register Of the
United States Land Office at San
Francisco, dated December IS, 1865,
for the fees required to be paid upon
the filing of homestead claim.
The fourth section of the act of March
20, 1868 Statutes 1878, p. 50S), pro-
vides that the certificate of purchase
sshall be received in any court of JUS
tice in the State as being prima facie
- &c 10 nd hnt lei
is applicable to all certificates Of pur-
chase issued after that act took effect.
The certificate of purchase gave the
plaintiff the right of possession of the
premises, unless the proceedings on
his part were rendered unavailing by
the homestead claim of the defendant;
and conceding that the latter proved
that he had taken the requisite steps
to acquire a homestead, and that it
would be valid and entitle him to the
possession, except for the proceedings
taken by the plaintiff, the question
presented is: which party acquired the
better right-which party would ac-
quire the title, if each should there
after proceed in the mode prescribed
by law? The party who first COM
menced his proceedings to acquire the
title has the better right. Smith VS..
Athern, "a CAL, 506).
The plaintiff relocated the land be-
fore the defendant filed his homestead
claim, and that act secured him the
better right to purchase the premises.
Judgment and order affirmed.
RHODES, j.
We concur: CROCKETT, J.
MCKINsTRY, J.
NILES, j.
~