Houghton v. Jones
Decision Date | 01 December 1863 |
Citation | 17 L.Ed. 503,68 U.S. 702,1 Wall. 702 |
Parties | HOUGHTON v. JONES |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
THIS was a writ of error to the Northern District of California; the case being thus:
By the act of Congress of March 3, 1851, 'to ascertain and settle the private land claims in the State of California,' it is provided, 'that each and every person claiming lands in California, by virtue of any right or title derived from the Spanish or Mexican government, shall present the same to the commissioners,' &c., who are directed to examine into and 'decide upon the validity of the said claim.' And it is further declared that 'all lands, the claims to which shall not have been presented to the said commissioners within two years after the date of the act, shall be deemed, held and considered as part of the public domain of the United States.'
With this act in orce, Mrs. Jones brought ejectment, in 1860, against Houghton and another, for land in Contra Costa County, in the State of California. She deraigned title from the Mexican government, through a grant issued in August, 1841, by Juan B. Alvarado, then Governor of the Department of California, and by sundry mesne conveyances from the grantees. It did not appear on the trial below that the grant had ever been laid before the Board of Commissioners, as required by the act above quoted, or in any way passed on by it. But no objection was made on the trial to the grant from this want of presentation to the board, or consideration by it.
One of the conveyances through which the plaintiff, Mrs. Jones, claimed was read in evidence, on proof of its execution, certified by a notary public. It is necessary, in that connection, to mention that a statute of California, 'concerning conveyances,' approved April 16th, 1850, contains the following enactments:1
The subscribing witness to the deed thus read was in court, and had been examined by the plaintiff about certain matters, but not about the execution of the deed. The defendant proposed to cross-examine him upon such execution, which the court would not allow him to do; deciding that if he wished to examine the witness at all upon a point not raised in the examination-in-chief, he must call him anew, and so make him his own witness.
The plaintiff having had judgment, and the defendant having sued out a writ of error, three questions were now here made; the first question having been raised on the argument in this court for the first time in the case.
1. Whether this want of presentation of the grant at any time to the Board of Commissioners was fatal to it?
2. Whether the deed was properly acknowledged by the laws of California.
3. Whether the court rightly refused to let the defendant cross-examine the witness in the circumstances stated.
Mr. Carlisle, for plaintiff in error:
I. The language of the statute of March 3, 1851, being express, it is indispensable that the grant should have been presented within two years after the date of the act. More than two years had passed before this suit brought. No averment of any presentation is made. No presumptions can be made to supply that which is a prerequisite of the case, an indispensable link in the title. The land is, of course, part of the public domain.
II. The statute does not dispense with calling the subscribing witness. The point has not yet been decided. Its language is perhaps not entirely plain.
III. The rule is not universally adopted that a right to cross-examine is limited to matters comprised in the examination-in-chief. In some States it prevails; in some it does not. The rule has not been so settled for California.
Mr. Hepburn, contra.
This is an action of ejectment to recover the possession of certain real property situat d in the County of Contra Costa, in the State of California. The plaintiff below, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Resurrection Gold Min. Co. v. Fortune Gold Min. Co.
...inquire of the witness concerning matters not opened on the direct examination, he must call him in his own behalf. Houghton v. Jones, 1 Wall. 702, 706, 17 L.Ed. 503; Montgomery v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 97 Fed.913, 38 C.C.A. 553, 557; Safter v. U.S., 87 F. 329, 330, 31 C.C.A. 1, 2; Mine & Sm......
-
St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Company v. Raines
...but must either wait until he has opened his case or introduce his defense as his testimony in chief. 100 U.S. 625; 14 Pet. 448; 1 Wall. 702; 1 Ev. §§ 445-447; 1 Wharton, Ev. § 529; McKelvey, Ev. § 246; 175 Pa.St. 361; 66 Barb. (N. Y.) 527; 83 N.Y. 436. See also 14 Ark. 555; 77 Cal. 324; 23......
-
The State v. Soper
...who had not been examined by defendant on that subject. Rheinfeldt v. Dahlman, 19 N.Y. 162; State v. Thalheim, 38 Fla. 169; Houghton v. Jones, 68 U.S. 702; Donnelly v. State, 26 N. J. L. 463; Rice on Ev., p. 332. (8) (a) The court erred in permitting witnesses to give their opinions of the ......
-
Harrold v. Territory of Oklahoma
... ... must call him on his own behalf. Railroad Company v ... Stimpson, 14 Pet. 448, 460, 10 L.Ed. 535; Houghton ... v. Jones, 1 Wall. 702, 706, 17 L.Ed. 503; ... O'Connell v. Pennsylvania Co., 118 F. 989, 991, ... 55 C.C.A. 483; Moxie Nerve Food Co. v. Beach ... ...
-
Table of Cases
..., 46 NY2d 358, 413 NYS2d 357 (1978), §22:41 Hough v. Hicks , 160 AD2d 1114, 554 NYS2d 340 (3d Dept 1990), §§8:04, 13:30 Houghton v. Jones , 68 US 702, 17 L Ed 503, 1 Wall 702 (1863), §25:05 Houghton v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith , 305 AD2d 214, 215, 761 NYS2d 13, 15 (1st Dept 200......
-
Cross-Examination of Lay Witnesses
...§6-303 (Farrell, 11th Ed. 1995) states that cross-examination is limited to matters testified to on direct, citing Houghton v. Jones , 68 US 702, 17 L Ed 503, 1 Wall 702 (1863) and Hall v. Allemannia Fire Insurance Co. , 175 AD 289, 161 NYS 1091 (4th Dept 1916), but acknowledges that trial ......
-
Cross-Examination of Lay Witnesses
...§6-303 (Farrell, 11th Ed. 1995) states that cross-examination is limited to matters testiied to on direct, citing Houghton v. Jones , 68 US 702, 17 L Ed 503, 1 Wall 702 (1863) and Hall v. Allemannia Fire Insurance Co. , 175 AD 289, 161 NYS 1091 (4th Dept 1916), but acknowledges that trial j......
-
Cross-Examination of Lay Witnesses
...§6-303 (Farrell, 11th Ed. 1995) states that cross-examination is limited to matters testified to on direct, citing Houghton v. Jones , 68 US 702, 17 L Ed 503, 1 Wall 702 (1863) and Hall v. Allemannia Fire Insurance Co. , 175 AD 289, 161 NYS 1091 (4th Dept 1916), but acknowledges that trial ......