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.
Property · MBE-tested
Poppe v. Langford
104 U.S. 77026 L. Ed. 922·Supreme Court of the United States·1881
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
Poppe v. Langford.
This court has no jurisdiction to re-examine 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 richt for the length of time that would bar an action of ejectment.
Motion to dismiss a writ of error to the Supreme Court of .the State of California.
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 Court of the State to which an appeal was taken $ -is stated in; the opinion, of this court.
'Mr. Q. T. Batts andAir. James I). Qoleman in support of the motion.
■ Mr. C. It. Greathouse and Mr. A. Chester, contra.
[MAJORITY — Mr. Chief Justice Waite]
Mr. Chief Justice Waite
delivered the opinion of the' court.
It is’clear wé 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 sect. 1007 of the Civil Code of California' was unnecessary and not required in the determination of the' cause.
' Motion granted.