Joseph McKenna

Name: Thompson v. Los Angeles Farming Milling Company — Opinion of the Court
Author: Joseph McKenna

Thompson v. Los Angeles Farming Milling Company…

Summary

“Thompson v. Los Angeles Farming Milling Company — Opinion of the Court”, is a work by Joseph McKenna. It explores elements such as the United States, grant and claim.

Quotes from Thompson v. Los Angeles Farming Milling Company… (Joseph McKenna)

Joseph McKenna, Thompson v. Los Angeles Farming Milling Company…

“ It is in this effect of the patent as a record of the government that its security and protection chiefly lie. If parties asserting interest in lands acquired since the acquisition of the country could deny and controvert this record, and compel the patentee, in every suit for his land, to establish the validity of his claim, his right to its confirmation, and the correctness of the action of the tribunals and officers of the United States in the location of the same, the patent would fail to be, as it was intended it should be, an instrument of quiet and security to its possessor. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Joseph McKenna, Thompson v. Los Angeles Farming Milling Company…

“ The ultimate basis of the contention is that the court of private land claims had no jurisdiction to confirm the grant because the governor of the Californias had no power to convey the public land for a money consideration. That is to say, the grant being void it could not be the basis of a claim to lands 'by virtue of any right or title derived from the Spanish or Mexican government.' This conclusion is attempted to be deduced from the words of § 8 of the act of Congress of 1851 (9 Stat. at L. 631, chap. 41) creating the board of land commissioners. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Joseph McKenna, Thompson v. Los Angeles Farming Milling Company…

“ They attempt to distinguish More v. Steinbach. We think it cannot be distinguished. That case, it is said, depended upon the possible presence of 'exceptional circumstances with reference to the sale to Poli which authorized the governor to make it (the grant) .' And it is hence contended that the court felt itself 'bound to suppose such was the case in the absence of any evidence to the contrary. And taking for granted,' counsel further say, 'as it had to do, the jurisdiction of the board of commissioners that confirmed the Poli claim the court could reach no other conclusion. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Joseph McKenna, Thompson v. Los Angeles Farming Milling Company…

“ The power to consider whatever was necessary to the validity of the claim-propositions of law or propositions of fact, the fact of a grant, or the power to grant-was conferred. If there should be a wrong decision the remedy was not by a collateral attack on the judgment rendered. The statute provided the remedy. It allowed an appeal to the district court of the United States, and from thence to this court. Legal procedure could not afford any better safeguards against error. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Joseph McKenna, Thompson v. Los Angeles Farming Milling Company…

“ The intruder, resting solely upon his possession, might insist that the original claim was invalid or was not properly located, and therefore he could not be disturbed by the patentee. No construction which will lead to such results can be given to the 15th section. The term 'third persons,' as there used, does not embrace all persons other than the United States and the claimants, but only those who hold superior titles, such as will enable them to resist successfully any action of the government in disposing of the property.'
Plaintiffs in error deny the applicability of Beard v. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Joseph McKenna, Thompson v. Los Angeles Farming Milling Company…

“ Los Angeles Farming Milling Company
Argued: and Submitted November 8, 1900. --- Decided: January 7, 1901
This is an action of ejectment in which defendant in error was plaintiff in the court below, and the plaintiffs in error were defendants. It was brought in the superior court of Los Angeles county, state of California. Besides a prayer for the recovery of the land in controversy an injunction was asked against the commission or repetition of certain described trespasses. The land sued for was the south half of the Rancho ex-Mission de San Fernando, with certain exceptions. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Joseph McKenna, Thompson v. Los Angeles Farming Milling Company…

“ It was contended that the sale to Poli of the ex-Mission San Buena Ventura was illegal and void, and hence no title passed to the patentee on its confirmation, and in support of the contention United States v. Workman, 1 Wall. ”

Joseph McKenna

Summary

Quotes from Thompson v. Los Angeles Farming Milling Company… (Joseph McKenna)

Common terms

Similar works

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature