EHRHARDT V. HOGABOOM

• Citation: 115 U. S. 67
• Decision Date: 04 May 1885
• Court: United States Supreme Court

Ehrhardt v. Hogaboom

Submitted April 22, 1885

Decided May 4, 1885

115 U.S. 67

N ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT

OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Syllabus

In an action of ejectment for lands in California where the plaintiff traces title to the lands from a patent of the United States issued to a settler under the preemption laws, oral evidence is inadmissible on the part of the defendant to show that the lands were not open to settlement under those laws, but were swamp and overflowed lands which passed to the state under the Act of September 28, 1850.

It is the duty of the Land Department, of which the Secretary of the Interior is the head, to determine whether land patented to a settler is of the class subject to settlement under the preemption laws, and his judgment as to this fact is not open to contestation in an action at law by a mere intruder without title.

MR. JUSTICE FIELD delivered the opinion of the Court.

This is an action for the possession of a tract of land in Sacramento county, California, designated as the northeast

Page 115 U. S. 68

quarter of section SIX of a certain township, which is described. The plaintiff below, the defendant in error here, deraigns her title, through a patent of the United States embracing the demanded premises, bearing date June 10, 1875, issued to one Elkanah Baldwin, a settler under the preemption laws, and his conveyance to her of the land patented to him. On the trial, the patent and the conveyance to the plaintiff were produced and given in evidence. The defendant thereupon admitted that he was in possession of twenty acres of the tract covered by the patent, lying south of a certain fence, but contended that these twenty acres were swamp and overflowed lands which passed to the state of California under the Act of congress of September 28, 1850. This character of the land as swamp and overflowed he offered to prove by parol, but the offer was rejected, and we think correctly. He did not connect himself in any way with the title to the twenty acres. The certificate of purchase from the register of the state land office, which he produced, related to different land -- to what constituted a portion of the southeast quarter of section six -- whereas the land in controversy is part of the northeast quarter of that section. He was, as to the twenty acres, a simple intruder without claim or color of title. He was therefore in no position to call in question the validity of the patent of the United States for those acres,...