Supreme Court of the United States

Palmer v. Low

November 11, 187898 U.S. 1

Summary

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, holding that the alcalde’s grant record is admissible as primary evidence, the grant’s language is sufficient to convey fee simple, a grant to an infant is voidable not void, and the statute of limitations did not bar the action because it did not run until the 1864 congressional act. The Court based its decision on prior California and U.S. cases and the interpretation of the 1863 and 1864 statutes.

Holding

  • Was the entry in original “Book A” of alcalde grants admissible as primary evidence to prove a grant to Donner?. The entry in Book A is admissible as primary evidence of the grant.
  • Did the record show a grant sufficient in form?. The language of the grant is sufficient to convey fee‑simple title despite not meeting every requirement of the Plan of Pitic.
  • Was the grant void because made to an infant?. A grant to an infant is voidable, not void, and remains effective until properly set aside.
  • Was the action barred by the Statute of Limitations?. The statute of limitations did not bar the action because it did not begin to run against the title until the 1864 congressional act, and the plaintiff’s possession never ripened into title.

Docket 38

Cited authorities

  • 14 Stat. 4

Cited by

Read full opinionPDF