Daily Los Angeles herald., 1880-10-20
7oe9.

NATHAN FLETCHER AND
JOHN D. BICKNELL 7oao
VS..
B. w. MOWER.
Although the complaint in this
action ia entitled q compliant to
quiet title" IL contains all the ma
ferial allegations Of complaint In
ejectment, and we shall treat 1t as
such. It AYERS the Ownership of
the plaintiffs, the wrongful entry
and possession OF the defendants,
and prays, among other things,
that the PLAINTIFF recover the pos
session OF the premises. The plain
tiffs are entitled to such relief,
within the issues, as they have
proved themselves entitled to.
without regard to the mere form Of
the pleading.
The defendant In his answer de.
MES that the plaintiffs are the
owners Of said land or any part
thereof. He further denies that
within five years last past he
s'wrongfully or unlawfully entered
into possession of portion Of
said land, or that he holds
possession thereof, or any. part
thereof, unlawfully or wrongfully
or against right" which amounts
to an admission that no did in fact
enter into possession and still holds
the same.
For . further and separate an
swer, defendant alleges that plain
tiffS claim of title is based upon
an application of one E. w.
6quires to purchase said land from
the State, made at time when
said land was not subject to selec.
ton, and that said application did
not conform to the requirements Of
law In respect Of the affidavit and
description of the land to be filed
with the County Recorder, and
that the certificate Of purchase and
patent issued by the State were
illegal and void.
And for q further separate ans
Wer the defendant alleges that he
has been In the possession Of said
land, exercising control over 1t by
occupation, cultivation, renting
and payment Of taxes thereon, for
the past three years, claiming ad.
versely to the plaintiffs and all 9TH
or persons, by and in consequence
Of 4 claim of presumption duly
initiated In the u. s. District Land
ONCE at Los Angeles, made by him
In good faith, believing that said
land was at the Initiation OF said
presumption claim public land OF
the United States, and on his inf0r-
nation and belief be alleges that
1t still Is, and that his claim has
not yet been determined by the
Land Department Of the United
States.
Upon these pleadings the parties
went to trial and q Judgment was
rendered In favor of the defendant,
from which this appeal lie taken.
The Court found substantially as
follows: That the section lines
within which the land in contro.
versy lies, were surveyed by au-
thority Of the United States in Feb
ruary, 1898, and said survey ap-
proved April l, 1868. That the
township plat which included said
land was filed in the U. s. Land
ONCE in San Francisco April 22d,
1868, and afterwards re.filed at Los
Angeles November 21st, 1871.
That In pursuance of said appli.
cation Of said Squires to purchase
said land. the State Locating Agent
on the 22d Of April, 1868, located
said land with other lands as
!, school lands, in lieu of the s. E. I of
Section SO, 7. As, r. 4 WIS. B.
NJ, and the Commission Of fthe
General Land Office and the Sec-
rotary of the Interior on the Esd OF
November, 1871, listed said lands
to the State and the State issued q
patent therefor to said Squires,
from whom the plaintiffs deraign
title through mesne conveyances.
"That at the time OF said selec-
ton and location the owners of the
Rancho Sausol Rodonda claimed
that said lands were within the
limits Of said rancho" That two
surveys Of said rancho were made
In l666-0ne of which excluded,
and the other included the land in
controversy within the lines of
said rancho. The one excluding
said land was finally approved and
. patent was issued in accordance
herewith on the 22d of February,
1875.
"That the defendant claims as
prs-emptor the 81 of NW4 and M
of6W} of Sec. 80, T. Z s., r. Is
W., 8. b. M. That he entered up
on the WI Of SW4 Of NW3 Of said
lands In December, 1876, under an
Agreement to purchase said twenty
aores Of land from Nathan Fletch-
Or, one Of the plaintiffs herein, and
Rendered his declaratory statement
1n u. 3. Land Office claiming the
100 acres above described in March,
1875, rendering the officers OF said
Land Office all legal fees, and the
said officers refused to file said
0oclaratory statement or permit
aid defendant to file on said lands,
from which ruling said defendant
appealed to the commissioner of
& ~ General Land Office and the
same is undetermined by said Com.
|GnlesiOner and still pending.
That In December, 1875, said de.
Z 1ndant rendered in proof Of settle
|-A4t - AC4uiaOd W INV w thO VI
oers of the q. s. Land Office S1.25
E}(oF-acre for the land aid offered to
oter the same; that the officers re.
1eed to receive the proof and re-
$3.50 to receive tho money tender
1 on the ground that they did not
6cnsider the land open to entry, as
- same appeared upon the re-
osds Of their Office to have been
listed on the State Of California.
Il That defendant moved upon the
6nds described in the complaint In
Anuary, 1877. That he moved into
Ind took possession OF a dwelling
.oose erected by e. w. Squlres, one
plaintiffs' grantors; that said
1GdD had been occupied and exclu-
koly Possessed by e. w. Squires
IN1 others claiming said land under
y title of State of CALIFORNIA;,
lafntiffs' grantoTs since the year