TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Laugenour v. Hennagin

THOMAS F. LAUGENOUR v. GEORGE T. HENNAGIN

Laugenour v. Hennagin, 59 Cal. 625 (1881)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
California Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
November 15, 1881
Docket
No. 7,897
Citations
59 Cal. 625
Headnotes
Ejectment—Certificate of Pürchase—Purchase of State Lands— Land Warrant—Estoppel by Judgment.—In ejectment the plaintiff relied upon a certificate of purchase issued to him by the Register of the Land Office, in pursuance of the judgment in the case of Laugenour v. Shanlclin, 57 Cal. 70, and the defendant, upon a junior application to purchase the land in controversy. Held: Upon the facts appearing the right of the plaintiff to the certificate of purchase for the land in dispute is no longer open to controversy. Id,—Id.—By § 1925, C. C. P., the certificate is made primary evidence that the holder is owner of the land described therein.
Summary
Appeal from a judgment for the plaintiff and from an order denying a new trial in the Superior Court of the County off. Yolo. Bush, J. The action was ejectment, the plaintiff relying upon a certificate of purchase issued in pursuance of the judgments in Laugenour v. Shanklin, and Wright v. Laugenowur, cited in the opinion. The defendant claimed under an application to purchase made^pending the case last referred to.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

The Court:

Upon the facts appearing, the right of the plaintiff to the certificate of purchase for the land in dispute, which forms a part of the five hundred thousand acre grant, is no longer open to controversy. (Wright v. Laugenour, 55 Cal. 280 ; Laugenour v. Shanklin, 57 id. 70.)

By Section 1925 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the certificate is made primary evidence that the holder is the owner of the land described therein.

We discover no error in the record.

Judgment and order affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1888: 11890: 21900: 118882026peak 1890 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Goodwin v. McCabe17 P. 705 (Cal. 1888)
  2. Witcher v. Conklin24 P. 302 (Cal. 1890)
  3. Cucamonga Fruit-Land Co. v. Moir23 P. 359 (Cal. 1890) · Dissent
  4. Hockett v. Alston58 S.W. 675 (Ct. App. Ind. Terr. 1900)

Most recent

  1. Hockett v. Alston58 S.W. 675 (Ct. App. Ind. Terr. 1900)
  2. Witcher v. Conklin24 P. 302 (Cal. 1890)
  3. Cucamonga Fruit-Land Co. v. Moir23 P. 359 (Cal. 1890) · Dissent
  4. Goodwin v. McCabe17 P. 705 (Cal. 1888)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Wright v. Laugenour, 55 Cal. 280 (1880) 3

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list