Case Name: WILLIAM B. CARR, Appellant, v. JOHN QUIGLEY, Respondent
Court: Supreme Court of California
Jurisdiction: California
Decision Date: 1889-05-01
Citations: 79 Cal. 130
Docket Number: No. 9531
Parties: WILLIAM B. CARR, Appellant, v. JOHN QUIGLEY, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: California Reports
Volume: 79
Pages: 130–136

Head Matter:
[No. 9531.
In Bank.
May 1, 1889.]
WILLIAM B. CARR, Appellant, v. JOHN QUIGLEY, Respondent.
Public Lands—Railroad Grant—Mexican Grant—Validity oe Patent. — A patent issued to the Central Pacific Railroad Company, as the successor in interest of the Western Pacific Railroad Company, under the acts of July 1, 1862, and July 2, 1864, for land within the exterior limits of a Mexican grant which was sub judice when the lands included in the railroad grant were withdrawn from entry and sale, is void as to such land, it being a “government reservation” within the meaning of the act of 1864.
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Alameda County, and from an order denying a new-trial.
The action was commenced December 29, 1877, by W. B. Carr against John Quigley, to recover certain land in Alameda County, which the plaintiff claimed as grantee under a patent issued to the Central Pacific Railroad Company February 28, 1874. This patent was in confirmation of the grant of lands made by the acts of July 1, 1862, and July 2, 1864, to the Western Pacific Railroad Company, the predecessor in interest of the Central Pacific Railroad Company, and recites the exception of lands reserved from the grant. The defendant claimed the land as a qualified pre-emptor, and justified his possession by offering to show that the land in question was included in the exterior limits of the Mexican grant Las Pocitas, and was suhjudice when the land included in the railroad grant was withdrawn from entry. The sufficiency of this defense was sustained upon the former appeal of this case. (57 Cal. 394.) Upon the new trial, the evidence showed that the state of facts offered to be proved upon the first trial actually existed; that no final survey was approved so as definitely to fix the rights of the claimants of the grant until 1871; and that the land sued for was not embraced in the tract as finally surveyed.
Shafter, Parker, & Waterman, for Appellant.
Mich. Mullany, for Respondent.

Opinion:
Thornton, J.
We regard the contention of appellant, Carr, in this case as settled by the decision of the supreme court of the United States in Doolan v. Carr, 125 U. S. 618, and by the decisions of this court made prior to the judgment in Doolan v. Carr, viz., Carr v. Quigley, 57 Cal. 394, and McLaughlin v. Heid, 63 Cal. 208.)
The same points were presented in Doolan v. Carr that are presented in this case, and with reference to the same Mexican grant of Las Pocitas. The only difference is, that in Doolan v. Carr the points arose and were presented on an offer of testimony, and here they arise on the proof of the facts, which Doolan offered to prove in his suit against Carr.
In our judgment, there is no error in the record, and the judgment and order must be affirmed.
So ordered.
Sharpstein, J., McFarland, J., and Works, J., concurred.