Skip to content


Poppe Vs. Langford - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtUS Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number104 U.S. 770
AppellantPoppe
RespondentLangford
Excerpt:
poppe v. langford - 104 u.s. 770 (1881) u.s. supreme court poppe v. langford, 104 u.s. 770 (1881) poppe v. langford 104 u.s. 770 motion to dismiss a writ of error to the supreme court of the state of california syllabus this court has no jurisdiction to reexamine the judgment of a state court affirming that the title of the true owner of lands is extinguished by an adverse possession under color of right for the length of time that would bar an action of ejectment. langford, the substituted plaintiff in an action of ejectment, against poppe, in the district court of the fifth judicial district of california, for the county of san joaquin, recovered judgment for a tract of land in that county. the only real question involved in.....
Judgment:
Poppe v. Langford - 104 U.S. 770 (1881)
U.S. Supreme Court Poppe v. Langford, 104 U.S. 770 (1881)

Poppe v. Langford

104 U.S. 770

MOTION TO DISMISS A WRIT OF ERROR TO THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Syllabus

This court has no jurisdiction to reexamine the judgment of a state court affirming that the title of the true owner of lands is extinguished by an adverse possession under color of right for the length of time that would bar an action of ejectment.

Langford, the substituted plaintiff in an action of ejectment, against Poppe, in the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District of California, for the County of San Joaquin, recovered judgment for a tract of land in that county. The only real question involved in the case and passed upon by the supreme

Page 104 U. S. 771

court of the state to which an appeal was taken is stated in the opinion of this Court.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE delivered the opinion of the Court.

It is clear we have no jurisdiction in this case. All the court below decided was that in California, the title of the true owner of lands is extinguished by an adverse possession under color of right for the length of time which would be a bar to a recovery in ejectment. This is not a federal question. All that was said about sec. 1007 of the Civil Code of California was unnecessary, and not required in the determination of the cause.

Motion granted.


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