1. Land claims arising by virtue of a right or title derived
from the Spanish or Mexican government are required to be presented
to the land commissioners for adjudication.
2. Final decrees in such cases, whether made by the
commissioners or by the district court, unless an appeal is taken,
are conclusive between the United States and the claimants.
3. Confirmation alone, however, did not, under the original act,
confer upon the claimant a right to a patent, but it was made the
duty of the surveyor general, as a condition to the granting of the
same, to cause such claim, if finally confirmed, to be accurately
surveyed, and to furnish plats of the same to the Land Office.
4. But the second section of the subsequent act conferred
jurisdiction upon the district court to order such surveys to be
returned into that court for examination.
5. Authority is also conferred upon the court to set the survey
aside and annul the same or to correct and modify it.
6. Parties may except to any such order or decree and appeal
from the same, but the questions for decision here are those only
which are presented in the exceptions.
Page 72 U. S. 828
7. Such an appeal does not open the decree of confirmation for
revision, because that decree is the foundation of the survey.
8. Unless the decree of confirmation is a valid decree, there
cannot be a valid survey, as the latter is founded upon the
former.
9. Mexican governors made three kinds of grants or concessions
of vacant public lands. 1. Grants by specific boundaries, where the
donee is en titled to the entire tract described. 2. Grants by
quantity, as of one or more leagues of land situated in a larger
tract, and usually described by outboundaries, where the donee is
entitled to the quantity specified, and no more. 3. Grants of a
certain place or rancho by some particular name, either with or
without specific boundaries, where the donee is entitled to the
tract according to the boundaries, if given, and if not according
to the limits of the possession and settlement.
10. Boundaries of the claim in this case are given in the decree
of confirmation, and as neither party appealed from that decree,
they are not now at liberty to question its correctness or to ask
for any modification of its terms.
11. Construction of the decree must be governed by the ordinary
rules of the common law, as it is a decree of a federal court
sitting in a state where the common law prevails.
12. Terms of the decree, taken as a whole, are sufficiently
definite and complete to secure to the claimants all their legal
rights.
13. Errors exist undoubtedly in the courses specified in the
decree, but the general rule in such cases is that courses and
distances must give place to monuments and physical boundaries
described in the grant, and when that rule is applied in the case,
there is no such uncertainty as is supposed.
14. First course is from the back of the principal house to the
lone tree, which is not the subject of dispute. Second course is
from the lone tree along the sierra to the adjoining rancho. Third
course runs westwardly along the northern line of that rancho to
the arroyo, which is well known. Fourth course runs up the arroyo
to the estuary, and from that point to the place of beginning.
15. Correct, as above, the courses of the described lines by the
monuments given, as should be done, and the boundaries of the tract
are specific and complete, and the survey and decree describe the
same land.
MR. JUSTICE CLIFFORD delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is an appeal from a decree of the District Court of the
United States for the Northern District of California confirming
the survey of a private land claim. Appeals in
Page 72 U. S. 829
such cases are authorized by the fifth section of the Act of the
fourteenth of June, 1860, if applied for within six months after
the date of the decree, and it is under that special provision that
the present controversy is now before the Court.
I. 1. Original claimant acquired a possessory right to the tract
of land situate in Santa Clara County, California, and called
Tularcitos, on the fourth of October, 1821, by virtue of a decree
of concession of that date made to him by the governor of the
territory. Directions of the decree of concession were that the
applicant for the tract should be put in possession of the same by
the commissioner of San Jose, in whose jurisdiction the land was
situated. Measurements were to be made and monuments fixed on the
four sides of the tract, and the officer designated to perform the
duty was to make return of his doings to the government. Pursuant
to those directions, the commissioner attended to the duty assigned
to him and made his return, in which he states that he went upon
the tract and gave possession to the donee, designating the number
of varas allowed on each of the four sides of the concession.
Claim to a portion of the tract it seems was subsequently made
by an adjoining proprietor, and on the seventeenth day of October,
1835, the original claimant presented to the governor of the
territory a second petition, in which he requested that the
boundaries of the concession to him might be enlarged, and that his
title to the former concession might be confirmed. He based the
claim in the second application chiefly upon two grounds: 1. that
he had been in the occupation of the tract for more than twelve
years; 2. that a part of the tract embraced in the decree of
concession had been granted to another person.
2. Second decree of concession granted the augmentation, as
requested, and directed that the same should be considered as
annexed to the former concession. Annexed to the petition was a
diseno describing the entire tract, which appears to have been made
in strict conformity to the colonization laws. Remark should be
made that the first concession did not profess to grant anything
more than a possessory
Page 72 U. S. 830
right, and the second espediente is without the formal title,
but there can be no doubt that the several documents are sufficient
to give to the donee an inchoate right to the tract within the
meaning of the treaty of cession and the act of Congress
subsequently passed to carry the provisions of the treaty into
effect. [
Footnote 1]
Such also were the views of the land commissioners appointed
under that act of Congress, as appears by their decree confirming
the claim.
Description of the tract as given in the decree of confirmation
is that it is situated in Santa Clara County and is the same land
formerly occupied by Jose Higuera, now deceased, and is known by
the name of Los Tularcitos. Boundaries given in the decree are as
follows: Beginning at the back side of the principal house on said
rancho, standing at the foot of the hill, and running thence
northwardly to a lone tree on the top of the sierra (which tree is
known as a landmark), thence east along the sierra to the line of
the land known as the rancho of Jose Maria Alviso, thence southerly
along the west line of said Alviso's rancho till it intersects the
Arroyo de la Penetencia, thence up said arroyo to an estuary, and
from that point to the place of beginning.
3. Appeal was duly taken from that decree by the United States,
but the appeal, on the motion of the district attorney, was
subsequently dismissed, and on his motion also it was ordered,
adjudged, and decreed that the claimants have leave to proceed
under the decree as a final decree in their favor. No appeal was
subsequently taken, and the decree therefore became and is the
final decree in the case. Final decrees in such cases, if regularly
made and duly entered in the record, are conclusive between the
United States and the claimants unless an appeal is seasonably
taken from the decree according to law. [
Footnote 2]
4. Confirmation alone, however, did not, under that act, confer
upon the claimant a right to a patent, but it was made the duty of
the surveyor general to cause all private land
Page 72 U. S. 831
claims finally confirmed to be accurately surveyed, and to
furnish plats of the same, and the provision was that a patent
should issue to the claimant upon his presenting to the General
Land Office an authentic certificate of such confirmation and a
plat or survey of the land, duly certified and approved by the
surveyor general.
Such was the legal effect of a final confirmation of a private
land claim under the act of Congress first passed to carry the
treaty of cession into effect, and such also was the legal course
of proceeding under that act to procure a patent.
5. But authority was conferred upon the District Courts for the
Northern and Southern Districts of California under the second
section of the subsequent act, to which reference has been made,
upon the application of any party interested, to make an order
requiring any survey of a private land claim, within their
respective districts, to be returned into such court for
examination and adjudication, and if, upon the hearing of the
allegations and proofs, the court should be of opinion that the
survey and location were erroneous, the court in that event was
authorized to set it aside and annul the same or to correct and
modify it. Proofs are to be taken and the parties have a right to
be heard, and thereupon the court is required "to render judgment
thereon."
Survey of the tract in this case was made by the surveyor
general, and on the seventh day of June, 1859, the court, on motion
of the claimants, made an order directing the plat of the survey to
be returned into court. Whereupon the claimants filed three
exceptions to the survey, which in substance and effect are as
follows: 1. that the survey was not made in accordance with the
decree of confirmation; 2. that according to the decree of
confirmation and the evidence in the case, the northern and
southern lines of the survey should be extended easterly to the
sierra or main range of mountains, so as to include the tract of
country known as the Valley of the Calaveras; 3. that the northern
line, extending from the estuary to the Calera Creek, should be a
straight line instead of an angle, as represented on the plat.
Testimony was taken, but before the hearing, the
Page 72 U. S. 832
claimants filed an additional exception, describing the tract of
country mentioned in the second exception and claiming that the
lines of the survey should be extended as therein specified so as
to embrace that whole tract. Additional testimony was then taken
and the parties were heard, and after the hearing the several
exceptions were overruled and a decree entered that the "survey be,
and the same is hereby confirmed." Claimants asked for a rehearing,
which was granted, but the court refused to modify the decree, and
ordered that it stand as the final decree in the cause. Present
appeal is from that decree, and the questions for decision are
those presented in the exceptions to the survey and location, as
the same were filed by the claimants.
II. 1. Appellants insist as a primary proposition that the
boundaries of the tract as given in the decree are so indefinite
and incongruous that the decree cannot be carried into effect, and
consequently that they have a right in this proceeding to prove the
extent of the tract as formerly occupied by the original claimant,
so that the court may determine the true location and correct the
errors in the decree of confirmation. But no such authority is to
be found in the act conferring jurisdiction over the surveys of
private land claims, nor in any other act of Congress upon that
subject. Survey is required of all private land claims finally
confirmed. Such claims are required to be accurately surveyed,
which is equivalent to a requirement that the survey, where the
decree of confirmation is by metes and bounds, shall conform to the
decree.
Private land claims such as are recognized in that act are those
which arise by virtue of a right or title derived from the Spanish
or Mexican government. Every person claiming such lands in
California was required to present his claim to the land
commissioners for adjudication, and the provision was that all land
the claims to which should be finally decided to be invalid, and
all lands the claims to which should not have been presented to the
commissioners within two years from the date of the act should be
decreed, held, and considered as part of the public domain.
Page 72 U. S. 833
2. Confirmed claims only were required under that act to be
surveyed, and it is only the surveys of such claims that the
district court, under the second section of the subsequent act, is
authorized to order into court for examination and adjudication.
Confirmation must precede the survey which is made subject to such
an order, and if the decree of confirmation is so indefinite and
incongruous that it cannot be executed, then it is void and of no
effect, and the claim to the land stands upon the same footing in
legal contemplation as a claim which was never presented to the
commissioners for adjudication. Nothing can be plainer than the
proposition that a decree of confirmation under that act, which is
in itself void, cannot be the proper foundation of a legal survey
and location of the claim, and if not then, it is equally clear
that the survey of the claim, although made by the surveyor
general, and ordered into the district court, cannot confer any
jurisdiction upon the court to determine the boundaries of the
claim. Assume, therefore, that the proposition under consideration
is correct and it necessarily follows that the claimants have no
legal right whatever to any portion of the tract.
3. Jurisdiction over the "right or title" of the claimant is
conferred upon the commissioners under the act entitled "An act to
ascertain and settle private land claims," but the jurisdiction
over the surveys of the same, after the plat is certified and
approved by the surveyor general, is conferred upon the district
court under the subsequent act, and the two things are wholly
distinct and cannot be blended, nor can the one be substituted for
the other.
4. But the Court does not by any means intend to be understood
as acceding to the proposition that the decree of confirmation in
this case is either void or voidable. On the contrary, it is clear,
we think, that the decree, when properly understood, is not only
free from any question as to its validity, but is also of a
character to secure to the claimants all their right and title in
the premises.
5. Concessions or grants of land by Mexican governors
Page 72 U. S. 834
were of three kinds, and in some respects the rules applicable
to their construction are widely different. They were concessions
or grants by specific boundaries, where, of course, the donee is
entitled to the entire tract or concession, or grants by quantity,
as of one or more leagues of land situate at some designated place,
or within a larger tract described by what are called
outboundaries, where the donee is entitled to the quantity
specified and no more, or grants or concessions of a certain place
or rancho by some particular name, either with or without specific
boundaries, where the donee is entitled to the tract according to
the boundaries, if boundaries are given, and if not according to
the extent and limits of the tract or rancho as shown by the proofs
of settlement and possession.
Confessedly the concession in this case, as originally made, was
of the latter class, but the questions presented for decision under
the exceptions to the survey have respect to the decree of
confirmation, and not to the concession or concessions as made by
the governor.
III. 1. The decree of confirmation gives the boundaries of the
claim, and as neither of the parties appealed from it, they are not
at liberty to question its correctness or ask for any modification
of its terms. Construction of the decree must be governed by the
ordinary rules of the common law, as it is the decree of a federal
court sitting in a state where the common law prevails. Most or all
of the courses given in the decree are undoubtedly erroneous, but
there is very little difficulty in ascertaining the cause of the
error and still less in the conclusion that the errors in that
behalf ought not to control the questions under consideration, nor
be suffered to affect or prejudice the rights of either party.
Unlike what is usually to be seen in Mexican espedientes, it
appears in this case that two of the disenos or maps of the tract
exhibited in the espedientes, contain on their face a delineation,
as on a card, of the four cardinal and other principal points of
the compass. Referring to the delineation, it will be seen that
north, as there delineated, is in the place of northwest, and that
the corresponding error occurs throughout
Page 72 U. S. 835
the delineation. Make the correction suggested and the
representation of the points of compass would be substantially
correct in all respects -- or in other words, read north for
northwest and northeast for north, and there would be little or no
incongruity between the monuments given in the decree and the
courses as therein laid down. Mistakes of a like character were
made by the Mexican witnesses in their description of the tract and
its boundaries. They knew the monuments designated as marking the
boundaries of the donee's possession, but they do not profess to
have had any positive knowledge as to the true course from one
monument to another. Language of the decree is so nearly the same
as that employed by one or more of the witnesses as to justify the
conclusion that the commissioners, in framing the decree, borrowed
the terms of the description from the language employed by the
witnesses.
2. Appellants do not deny that the place of beginning is
correct, nor do they controvert the fact that the first course is
from the back side of the principal house to a lone tree on the top
of the sierra, which is known as a landmark. The course, as stated
by the witnesses and given in the decree, is northwardly, but the
termini of the line being given and the respective monuments
marking the line admitted, it is clear that the monuments must
govern. Measurements of distances and the direction of lines in
reference to the points of the compass mentioned in a deed, may be
made a part of the description of the premises intended to be
granted, and in some cases, where the lines are so short as
evidently to be susceptible of entire accuracy in their
measurement, and are defined in such a manner as to indicate an
exercise of care in describing the premises, such a description is
regarded with great confidence as a means of ascertaining what is
intended to be conveyed. But ordinarily surveys are so loosely
made, and so liable to be inaccurate, especially when made in rough
or uneven land or forests, that the courses and distances given in
the instrument are regarded as more or less uncertain, and always
give place, in questions of doubt or discrepancy, to known
monuments and boundaries
Page 72 U. S. 836
referred to as identifying the land. [
Footnote 3] Such monuments may be either natural or
artificial objects, such as rivers, streams, springs, stakes,
marked trees, fences, or buildings. [
Footnote 4]
3. Second line mentioned in the decree is from the lone tree
along the sierra to the line of the land known as the rancho of
Jose Maria Alviso, who was the southern colindante of the original
claimant. Three objections are assigned by the claimants to the
second line in the decree as showing that it is unreliable and
cannot be executed. First objection is that the course from the
lone tree along the sierra, as described in the decree, is east
instead of southeast as it should be, if the views of the appellees
are correct. Beyond doubt, the fact is as suggested, but the
objection is entitled to no weight, for the same reasons as those
assigned in respect to the error in the described course of the
first line. Both of the monuments, to-wit the lone tree and the
sierra, are fully proved, and the appellants are obliged to concede
that the lone tree and sierra of the survey are the same as those
of the decree. They do not attack the survey as a departure from
the decree, but insist that the decree is so indefinite and
incongruous that it cannot be executed, and that the survey is
contrary to the actual location of the land granted to the donee,
as shown by the evidence in the case. Impliedly the proposition
admits that if the decree can be executed the appellees must
prevail, and so is the course of the argument.
Appellants contend, in the next place, that the second line,
that is, the line from the lone tree along the sierra, is
unreliable, because they insist that the evidence shows that the
lone tree is not a corner boundary. Present inquiry, however, is
how it was viewed by the commissioners when they framed the decree,
and not what they might or ought to
Page 72 U. S. 837
have decided if the evidence since taken had been before them at
that time. Looking at the language of the decree, it is beyond a
doubt that the commissioners, in framing it, regarded the lone tree
as a corner boundary -- that is, as the termination of the first
line and as the beginning of the second -- so that the second
objection of the appellants is unfounded in fact.
Third objection is that the second line, if run from the lone
tree along the sierra, would not intersect the line of the rancho
mentioned in the decree. But the objection is purely a technical
one, and as such is entitled to no weight. Alviso's land did not,
it is true, extend quite to the sierra, or if it did, his northern
line, as exhibited on the disenos in the record, was not so
delineated. Protract the line in the same direction to the sierra,
and the whole foundation of the objection is gone. The intention of
the decree is obvious, and there can be no doubt that the surveyor
general was right in regarding that supposed defect as supplied by
necessary implication from the language of the decree. He
terminated the second line at the point where the northern line of
the other rancho, if protracted as the commissioners assumed, would
strike the sierra, and in adopting that view, it is clear that he
carried into effect the intention of the commissioners.
4. Residue of the decree is without objection except that the
third line has the corresponding error in the course of the line.
Substance of the objection is that the course is described as
southerly instead of westwardly, as assumed by the appellants, and
as running along the west line of the other rancho instead of along
the northern line of the same, as it should have been if their
theory is correct. Obviously both of these mistakes are of the same
character as those previously considered in the description of the
first and second lines, and they may be answered in the same way,
as the evidence is full to the point that the location of the
rancho referred to was well known. Evidence shows that the
proprietor of that rancho and the original claimant at one time had
a controversy in respect to that line, but that
Page 72 U. S. 838
the same was satisfactorily adjusted under Mexican rule before
the second concession was made to the donee. When reference,
therefore, was made to that rancho, it was to one well known, and
the termination of the line was at the Arroyo de la Penetencia,
which was equally well known and established.
5. Remaining portion of the description as given in the decree
is as follows: thence up the arroyo to an estuary, and from that
point to the place of beginning. Correct the description of the
courses of the lines or strike out that portion of the description
and the boundaries of the tract are complete and specific, and the
survey and the decree describe the same tract of land. Unless the
views of the claimants are misunderstood, they do not deny that
fact, and if they do, it is a sufficient answer to the denial, in
view of the explanations already given, to say that in the judgment
of this Court the just and legal conclusion is the other way.
6. Having come to the conclusion that the rights of the
appellants are fully defined in the decree of the commissioners and
that the survey in question corresponds with that decree, we do not
think it necessary to enter into any extended examination of the
evidence as to the extent of the tract embraced in the original
concessions as presented to the land commissioners. All those
matters were concluded by the decree, and the only question now is
whether the decree of the commissioners is fairly carried into
effect by the survey and decree of the district court, and our
conclusion upon that question is that the complaints of the
appellants are without any foundation. While such is our
conclusion, we still think it proper to say that we have looked
into the evidence in the case with care, and have no hesitation in
saying that if the whole controversy was open, as is supposed by
the claimants, we should be constrained to concur in the views of
the district judge that the great weight of the evidence shows that
the survey describes the true location and boundaries of the
tract.
Decree affirmed.
[
Footnote 1]
9 Stat. at Large 631-2.
[
Footnote 2]
Ibid., 632.
[
Footnote 3]
Washburn on Real Property (2d ed), 673;
Preston's Heirs v.
Bowman, 6 Wheat. 582;
Marshall v.
Currie, 4 Cranch 176;
Farrington v.
Ridgely, 4 Me. 286;
Howe v. Bass, 2 Mass. 280;
Bosworth v. Sturtevant, 6 Cushing 392;
Jackson v.
Ives, 9 Cowen 661.
[
Footnote 4]
Newsom v.
Prior, 7 Wheat. 10;
Rix v. Johnson, 5 N.H.
524.