
    [No. 5984.]
    Z. CHURCHILL v. A. F. ANDERSON.
    Title oe State to Lieu Laxos.—Tlio State acquires no title to lieu lands, which it can convey to a purchaser, until the land has been listed over to the State by the United States.
    Appeal from the District Court of the Twentieth Judicial District, Santa Clara County.
    
      The action was ejectment, and the plaintiff had judgment, from which the defendant appealed.
    
      Moore, Laine & Leib, for Appellant, cited Sutton v. Fasset, 51 Cal. 14; Bourne v. Chism, 48 Cal. 471; Hestres v. Brannan, 37 Cal. 388.
    
      C. C. Stephens and Spencer & Rankin, for Respondent, argued that the certificate of purchase is prima facie evidence of title, citing True v. Thompson, 42 Cal. 296 ; Rush v. Casey, 39 Cal. 344; Stanway v. Rubio, 51 Cal. 45; Hastings v. Jackson, 46 Cal. 244.
   By the Court :

It appears from the findings that when this action was commenced the land in controversy [lieu land] had not been listed over by the United States to this State; and it has been frequently decided by this Court that the State acquires no title which it can convey to a purchaser until the land has been listed over. It follows that when the action was commenced the plaintiff had no title.

Judgment reversed, and cause remanded for a new trial.  