McNee v. Donahue
Action by John H. McNee against Peter J. Donahue to recover possession of certain land. Verdict and judgment for defendant, which was affirmed on appeal to the supreme court of California. 18 Pac. Rep. 438. Plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.

STATEMENT BY MR. JUSTICE FIELD.

This is an action for the possession of certain parcels of land in the county of Santa Clara, Cal., embracing 106 acres and a fraction of an acre, and constituting, according to the United States survey, lots 1 and 2 of section 26, township 6 south, range 1 west, Mt. Diablo meridian. It was brought in the superior court of that county. The plaintiff, in his complaint, alleges ownership of the lands, and right of possession, on the 16th of June, 1882, and ever afterwards; the wrongful and unlawful entry thereon, on that day, by the defendant, and his exclusion of the plaintiff therefrom, to the latter's damage of $5,000; and that the value of their use and occupation is $2,000 a year. He therefore prays judgment for their possession, for the damages sustained, and for the value of their use and occupation until final judgment.

The defendant, in his answer, denies the material allegations of the complaint, and then, as a separate defense, by way of a cross-complaint, sets up various matters upon which he claims to have acquired the equitable title of the premises, and prays that a patent of the state for them to the plaintiff, and upon which he relies for a recovery in this case, may be adjudged null and void, or that he hold the legal title under it in trust for the defendant, and be decreed to convey the premises to him.

The plaintiff answered the cross-complaint, and the case was tried by the court without the intervention of a jury. After finding the facts, it held, as a conclusion of law, that the defendant was entitled to a judgment; that the plaintiff take nothing by his action; that the defendant was entitled at the commencement of the action, and was still entitled, to the possession of the premises, and was their equitable owner; and that the plaintiff holds the legal title, under a patent by the state of California, bearing date June 18, 1882, in trust for the defendant, and should execute and deliver a conveyance of the premises to him. Judgment in conformity with this conclusion was accordingly entered. On appeal to the supreme court of the state, it was affirmed, and the case is brought to this court on writ of error by the plaintiff.

S. F. Leib, for plaintiff in error.

P. G. Galpin, for defendant in error.

Mr. Justice FIELD, after stating the facts in the foregoing language, delivered the opinion of the court. 

Notes
Uncategorized United States Supreme Court decision