Although the record of a case here on writ of error may fail to
show how the facts on which the highest court of a state set aside
the findings of the trial court were brought to its attention, this
Court cannot ignore the recitals of what it considered if it
appears that testimony was in fact taken.
When the conclusions of the highest court of a state reversing
the trial court are in harmony with the general rule as to the
effect to be given to a patent of the United States, this Court is
not justified in setting the judgment side upon a presumption of
what might have been the testimony upon which the trial court made
it findings.
45 Ore. 203 affirmed.
The facts are stated in the opinion.
MR. JUSTICE BREWER delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case brings before us a judgment of the Supreme Court of
the State of Oregon. 45 Or. 203. It involves the title to Lot 3 and
the East 1/2 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 7, Township 1 North,
Range 17 East of the Willamette Meridian. The plaintiff in error
claims title as a preemptor; the defendant in error under a patent
from the United States. The land was patented as a part of the
grant made by act of Congress, approved February 25, 1867, 14 Stat.
409, of three alternate sections on each side of the road, to the
Dalles Military Wagon Road Company, a full account of which is to
be found in
Wilcox v. Eastern Oregon Land Co.,
176 U. S. 51. If
the patent was valid, the title to the land was in the
defendant,
Page 203 U. S. 128
and the judgment of the Supreme Court of Oregon was correct.
There being no conflicting land grant, the question whether the
land was within the territorial limits of that to the road company
is apparently one of fact only, and the decision of the Land
Department on matters of fact is ordinarily conclusive in the
courts.
The difficulty in the case arises from the condition of the
record. This shows that, by the trial court, findings of fact and
conclusions of law were made, one of the findings being that the
land is situated entirely outside the limits of the grant, and more
than three miles from the road as actually surveyed, platted, and
constructed by the company, and certified by the governor of the
state to the Land Department. No testimony is preserved, although
it appears that the case was referred to a referee, who took and
reported the testimony. The supreme court reversed the judgment of
the trial court, and, while making no special findings, in its
opinion discusses certain matters of evidence, and, after stating
that the testimony tends to show that the land was in fact within
the limits of the grant, rests its conclusion upon the general
proposition that there is no competent proof to impeach the records
of the Land Department or overthrow the presumption of validity
which attends a patent of the United States. The certificate of the
clerk of the supreme court states that the transcript is the full
and complete record filed in that court and upon which the appeal
was heard, while the certificate of the clerk of the trial court to
the record sent to the supreme court is
"that the same is a full, true, and correct copy of the
complaint, amended answer, demurrer to the amended answer, reply,
findings of fact and conclusions of law, undertaking on appeal,
notice of appeal filed in my office in the above-entitled cause,
and of all journal entries made in said cause, and of the whole
thereof."
From this it is contended that the supreme court, without any
evidence before it, set aside the findings of fact made by the
trial court. But it is the judgment of the supreme court
Page 203 U. S. 129
whose validity we are to consider, and while it made no special
findings, its statement of what was before it for consideration and
its conclusions therefrom are sufficient to sustain its judgment.
True, the record fails to show how the facts were brought to its
knowledge, but it is the highest court of the state, and we may not
ignore its recital of what it considered, especially as it appears
that testimony was taken and preserved.
Egan v. Hart,
165 U. S. 188. And
when its conclusions are in harmony with the general rule of the
effect to be given to a patent of the United States, we are not
justified in setting aside the judgment upon any presumption of
what might have been the testimony upon which the trial court made
its findings.
The judgment of the Supreme Court of the State of Oregon is
Affirmed.