McCoy v. Byrd
O. S. McCOY v. PLEASANT BYRD
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Ross (author)
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion — Ross
Ross, J.
It is well settled that an applicant seeking to purchase land from the State must set out in his affidavit the facts required by the statute to be stated therein. (Botsford v. Howell, 52 Cal. 158; Hildebrand v. Stewart, 41 Cal. 387; Woods v. Sawtelle, 46 Cal. 389.) The statute under which the plaintiff’s application is made (Pol. Code, § 3443) requires the affiant to state, among other things, that he knows the land applied for and the exterior bounds thereof, and knows, of his own knowledge, that there are no settlers thereon; or, if there are, that the land has been segregated more than six months by authority of the United States. From the affidavit of the plaintiff it does not appear whether there are or are not settlers on the land which he seeks to purchase. The courts cannot hold immaterial, matters which the statute declares must be stated.
Judgment affirmed.
McKinstry, J., and McKee, J., concurred.
Cites, in this corpus
- Botsford v. Howell No. 8473 · 1877-07-01
- Woods v. Sawtelle No. 3,373 · 1873-07-01
- Hildebrand v. Stewart No. 2,322 · 1871-07-01
Cited by
- McKenzie v. Brandon No. 11037 · 1886-10-26