Case Name: MICHAEL LYNCH v. FRANK BRIGHAM, CURTIS BRIGHAM and ESTHER BRIGHAM
Court: Supreme Court of California
Jurisdiction: California
Decision Date: 1876
Citations: 51 Cal. 491
Docket Number: No. 4700
Parties: MICHAEL LYNCH v. FRANK BRIGHAM, CURTIS BRIGHAM and ESTHER BRIGHAM.
Judges: 
Reporter: California Reports
Volume: 51
Pages: 491–494

Head Matter:
[No. 4700.]
MICHAEL LYNCH v. FRANK BRIGHAM, CURTIS BRIGHAM and ESTHER BRIGHAM.
Complaint in Action to have Dependant Declared a Trustee.—An allegation in a complaint that, in a contest in the United States land office between two pre-emption claimants, the party in whose favor it was decided procured a decision in his favor by false testimony fraudulently adduced, is a sufficient statement of a cause of action to entitle the plaintiff to relief by having the defendant declared his trustee.
Appeal from the District Court, Fifth Judicial District, County of San Joaquin.
Ejectment to recover the S. E. ¼ of Sec. 24, T. 3 S., R. 5 E., Mount Diablo meridian. The defendant, Curtis Brigham, in his cross-complaint, alleged that he settled on the land as a pre-emptor on the tenth day of May, 1868, and filed his declaratory statement on the eighth day of August, 1868. That on the thirteenth day of December, 1868, the grantor of the plaintiff, one Hall, built a cabin on the land, and on the eleventh of May following, filed his declaratory statement as a pre-emptor. That a contest arose between the defendant and Hall which was decided in favor of Hall. That the plaintiff bought of Hall with full notice, etc. The defendant appealed.
The other facts are stated in'the opinion and concurring opinion.
James B. Townsend, for the Appellant.
The court below erred in sustaining the plaintiff’s de murrer to Brigham’s equitable defense, cross-complaint and counter-claim. The facts alleged therein, if proved, should have obtained from the court, not only the defeat of the plaintiff’s action, but a decree in favor of said Brigham, adjudging said plaintiff a trustee of the legal title of said land for him, and compelling its conveyance. (U. S. Pre-emption Law of 1841; 5 U. S. Stats., p. 455, Secs. 10 to 15; Act of Congress of March 3,1853; 10 U. S. Stats., p. 244; 1 Lester’s Land Laws, p. 360 to 367; Garland v. Wynn, 20 How., U. S. 6; Lindsey v. Hawes, 2 Black. 554; Johnson v. Towsley, 13 Wallace, 72; Samson v. Smiley, 13 Wallace, 91; Lyttle v. State of Ark., 22 How., U. S. 193; Cunningham v. Ashley, 14 How., U. S. 378; Stark v. Starrs, 6 Wallace, 402; Bird v. Wilcox, 45 Cal. 686; Morrison v. Wilson, 13 Cal. 497; Estrada v. Murphy, 19 Cal. 248; Lestrade v. Barth, 19 Cal. 660.)
M. Lynch, in pro. per.
The question of defendant’s qualifications to pre-empt public land, was one of fact, of which the officers of the land department alone had jurisdiction. (Hosmer v. Wallace, 47 Cal. 461; Quinn v. Kenyon, 38 Cal. 504; Hill v. Miller, 36 Mo. 182; Stucker v. Duncan, 37 Mo. 160.)
The equitable defense, or cause of action of defendant, was not pleaded with sufficient particularity, and his answer did not possess all the elements and essential qualities of a bill in equity, without which it was fatally defective, and hence the demurrer was properly sustained. (Blum v. Robertson, 24 Cal. 141; Downer v. Smith, 24 Cal. 124; Lestrade v. Barth, 19 Cal. 660; Estrada v. Murphy, 19 Cal. 272.)

Opinion:
By the Court, Wallace, C. J.:
The demurrer to the equitable defense was sustained, and the propriety of the ruling of the court below in this respect is the only question presented for our consideration. It is alleged in that defense that in the contest before the register and receiver, Hall, the plaintiff's grantor, produced evidence to the purport and effect that the defendant, Cur tis Brigham, left land of his own to settle upon the quarter section in controversy, and " that said evidence was wholly false, and that the said Hall and Abling well knew at tho time that they produced said evidence before the said register and receiver that the same was wholly false." It is further alleged in the said .equitable defense of the defendant, Curtis Brigham, that the said register and receiver, and upon an appeal taken, the Commissioner of the General Land Office, were imposed upon and deceived by said false evidence, and were thereby led to award the land to Hall, instead of the defendant, Curtis Brigham. Under the settled rule governing controversies of this character, an equitable defense setting forth that the decision of the Land Department ivas procured by willfully false testimony, fraudulently adduced by the successful party, would entitle the defendant to be relieved.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded, with directions to overrule the demurrer to the equitable defense.