Skip to content


United States Vs. Chana - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtUS Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number65 U.S. 131
AppellantUnited States
RespondentChana
Excerpt:
united states v. chana - 65 u.s. 131 (1860) u.s. supreme court united states v. chana, 65 u.s. 24 how. 131 131 (1860) united states v. chana 65 u.s. (24 how.) 131 appeal from the district court of the united states for the northern district of california syllabus the decision of this court in the cases of united states v. nye, 21 how. 408, and united states v. rose, 23 how. 262, again affirmed; and as the testimony in the present case is similar to that offered in the above cases, the judgment of the district court in favor of the claimant is reversed. the claim was based upon sutter's general title, which has been explained in some of the preceding volumes of these reports. it was submitted on printed.....
Judgment:
United States v. Chana - 65 U.S. 131 (1860)
U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Chana, 65 U.S. 24 How. 131 131 (1860)

United States v. Chana

65 U.S. (24 How.) 131

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED

STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Syllabus

The decision of this Court in the cases of United States v. Nye, 21 How. 408, and United States v. Rose, 23 How. 262, again affirmed; and as the testimony in the present case is similar to that offered in the above cases, the judgment of the district court in favor of the claimant is reversed.

The claim was based upon Sutter's general title, which has been explained in some of the preceding volumes of these reports.

It was submitted on printed argument by Mr. Black, Attorney General for the United States, no counsel appearing for the appellees. It appears to have been confirmed by the court below before they knew the decision of this Court with regard to Sutter's general title.

MR. JUSTICE CAMPBELL delivered the opinion of the Court.

The appellees presented their claim before the board of commissioners for the settlement of land claims in California for a tract of land, consisting of four leagues, on the south side of Bear Creek, in Yuba County, under a grant to Theodore Sicard by Micheltorena, Governor of the Department of California.

The testimony to sustain the claim is similar to that offered in the cases of United States v. Nye, 21 How. 408, and United States v. Rose, 23 How. 262. In these cases it was determined that the testimony was not sufficient to support the

Page 65 U. S. 132

claims. This case must follow the same course that was assumed in those.

Judgment of the district court reversed, and petition dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //