United States v. VallejoAnnotate this Case
63 U.S. 416
U.S. Supreme Court
United States v. Vallejo, 63 U.S. 22 How. 416 416 (1859)
United States v. Vallejo
63 U.S. (22 How.) 416
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED
STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Where neither the grant of land in California nor the certificate of approval by the departmental assembly was found among the Mexican archives, nor the record of them upon any book of records, but both papers came from the hands of the claimants, the case will be remanded for further evidence.
This case was similar in many of its circumstances to the two preceding cases. The state of the title is set forth in the argument of the Attorney General.
MR. JUSTICE NELSON delivered the opinion of the Court.
The appellee, Vallejo, presented to the board of land commissioners a claim for three square leagues of land, known by the name of Yulupa, situate in the County of Sonoma, California, having derived his title from Miguel Alvarado, the original grantee.
The documentary evidence of the title is: 1st., a grant in due form, dated Monterey, 23d November, 1844, purporting to be signed by Micheltorena, Governor, and Francisco Arce, Secretary, with a memorandum by the secretary: "Note has been made of this title in the proper book," and 2d, a certificate of approval by the departmental assembly, bearing date
at the City of Los Angeles, 18 February, 1845, signed by Pio Pico, Governor, and Jose M. Corvarubias, Secretary.
Neither the grant nor the certificate of approval has been found among the Mexican archives, nor the record of them upon any book of records. Both papers came from the hands of the claimant. The genuineness of the title depends upon proof of the official signatures and some evidence of possession.
The board rejected the claim, but on appeal to the district court and the production of further proof of possession that court affirmed it.
The case falls within the views of the court in the United States v. Teschmaker, decided this term.
Decree reversed and the case remanded for further evidence.