Southern Pacific Railroad v. McCusker
THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA v. DANIEL McCUSKER THOMAS WALKER
Syllabus
Summary
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.
Ross, J.
If in an action of ejectment based on a patent purporting to have been issued in pursuance of the grant by Congress to the railroad company, it is competent for the defendant to attack the validity of the patent on the ground that the land embraced in it was included within the exterior limits of a tract of land claimed as a Mexican grant, and therefore excepted from the congressional grant, as was held by a majority of this court in McLaughlin v. Heid, 63 Cal. 208 , it is competent in an action to quiet title based on a similar patent for the defendant to show that the land included in it was swamp and overflowed land, and therefore excepted from the congressional grant. In the case at bar it was admitted by the respective parties that over one half of each governmental subdivision of the land in controversy was and always has been swamp and overflowed land, and thereby rendered unfit for cultivation. The case of McLaughlin v. Held is binding on us, and on the authority of that case we must reverse the judgment and order of the court below.
Judgment and order reversed and cause remanded for a new trial.
McKinstry, J., concurred in the judgment.
McKee, J., concurred.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 6 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
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.