Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
The United States, Appellants, v. Claude Chana, William Martin, Thomas P Turner, and Albert Rowe, 1860 — 65 U.S. 131 · caselaw · US
General
The United States, Appellants, v. Claude Chana, William Martin, Thomas P Turner, and Albert Rowe
65 U.S. 13124 How. 131·Supreme Court of the United States·1860
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
The United States, Appellants, v. Claude Chana, William Martin, Thomas P Turner, and Albert Rowe.
the decision of this court in the cases of United States v. Nye, 21 Howard, 408, and United States v. Rose, 23 Howard, 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.
This was an appeal from the District Court of the United States for the northern district of California.
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.
[MAJORITY — Mr. Justice CAMPBELL]
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. s
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 claims. This case must follow the same course that was assumed in those.
Judgment of the District Court reversed, and petition dismissed.