Case Name: FRANCISCO AURRECOCHEA et al., Respondents, v. PETER HINCKLEY, Appellant
Court: Supreme Court of California
Jurisdiction: California
Decision Date: 1874-11-12
Citations: 1 Cal. Unrep. 864
Docket Number: No. 3981
Parties: FRANCISCO AURRECOCHEA et al., Respondents, v. PETER HINCKLEY, Appellant.
Judges: We concur: Crockett, J.; Niles, J.
Reporter: California Unreported Cases
Volume: 1
Pages: 864–866

Head Matter:
FRANCISCO AURRECOCHEA et al., Respondents, v. PETER HINCKLEY, Appellant.
No. 3981;
November 12, 1874.
Adverse Possession — Mexican Claim. — A person in continuous adverse possession of premises for more than five years may not be made to relinquish them to one asserting rights through an old Mexican claim who has no patent and no final confirmation of title.
Adverse Possession — Mexican Claim. — When a plaintiff relies for recovery upon a final confirmation of title, the statute of limitations begins to run only at the issuance of the patent, and so bare possession for any time antecedent would not benefit his adversary; but, without actual issue of patent, a Mexican claim whieh such issue might make into a practical right, cannot be recognized as a claim entitled to protection by the United States.
APPEAL from Third Judicial District, Alameda County.
E. J. Pringle for respondents; A. H. Griffith for appellant.

Opinion:
McKINSTRY, J.
— The Mexican claim under which plaintiffs deraign title was not finally confirmed when the act of April 18, 1863, took effect (Stats. 1863, p. 325), nor had a patent for the land been issued when this action was. brought. The defendant was in the adverse possession more than five years before the commencement of the action. If the statute of 1863 is not in conflict with the constitution of the United States, or with a treaty, the defendant was entitled to judgment. No argument is made in the briefs upon the subject of such conflict.
Judgment and order reversed and cause remanded.
We concur: Crockett, J.; Niles, J.