The Court of Private Land Claims derived all of its powers from
the Act of March 3, 191, c. 539, 26 Stat. 854.
Under that act, the Court of Private Land Claims had no
jurisdiction in confirming a grant and supervising its survey to
extend the confirmation and boundaries over land included in
another grant confirmed by Congress and patented before the passage
of the act, or to alter the boundaries of such other grant as so
confirmed and as described in the patent. So
held where
both grants were complete and perfect before the Mexican cession,
and the grant confirmed by Congress was senior in time of grant.
Such jurisdiction could not be conferred on the Court of Private
Land Claims by consent of the owners of the grant confirmed by
Congress.
20 N.M. 145 affirmed.
Page 242 U. S. 596
The case is stated in the opinion.
MR. JUSTICE VAN DEVANTER delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is an action in ejectment to recover the area in conflict
between two land grants in New Mexico respectively known as the La
Joya and the Belen, the plaintiff being the owner of the former and
the defendant of the latter. The defendant prevailed, and the
judgment was affirmed. 20 N.M. 145.
The facts are these: both grants were complete and perfect at
the time of the Mexican cession and both were subsequently
confirmed, the Belen in 1858 by an act of Congress, c. 5, 11 Stat.
374, and the La Joya in 1893 by a decree of the Court of Private
Land Claims under the Act of March 3, 1891, c. 539, 26 Stat. 854.
The Belen was the older grant, and was patented in 1871, long
before the proceeding for the confirmation of the La Joya grant was
begun. Shortly after the decree confirming it was rendered, the La
Joya grant was surveyed preparatory to issuing a patent for it.
Objections to the survey were made by two persons interested in the
Belen grant, and the survey, with the objections, was laid before
the Court of Private Land Claims, as was required by the Act of
1891. The objections were to the effect that the survey erroneously
placed the northern boundary of the La Joya grant within the Belen
grant, and thereby wrongly brought the two largely in conflict.
After a hearing, the court found the objections well grounded,
ordered a resurvey of the La Joya grant, and particularly
designated what should be deemed its northern boundary. A resurvey
conforming to that direction
Page 242 U. S. 597
received the court's approval, and a patent for that grant was
then issued. While the resurvey greatly reduced the area in
conflict, it still left the northern boundary of the La Joya grant
within the Belen grant, and a conflict of about 11,000 acres
remained.
Without questioning the superiority which otherwise would result
from the seniority of the Belen grant, the plaintiff insisted that
the action of the Court of Private Land Claims in directing what
should be deemed the northern boundary of the La Joya grant, and in
approving the resurvey wherein that direction was followed,
amounted to an adjudication of the true location of the common
boundary between the grants, and was conclusive upon the owners of
the Belen grant. But the state courts held the contention untenable
in view of the provisions of the Act of 1891, and that ruling is
the only one called in question here.
The Court of Private Land Claims derived all of its powers from
the Act of 1891, the express purpose of which was to provide for
and secure the adjudication of Spanish and Mexican land claims as
between the claimants and the United States. The act divided the
claims into two principal classes. One class, particularly
described in § 6, embraced those which were "not already complete
and perfect," and the other, particularly described in § 8,
embraced those which were "complete and perfect" at the time of the
Mexican cession. The La Joya grant belonged to the latter class,
respecting which it was specially provided in § 8 that the court's
confirmation should not include any land "that shall have been
disposed of by the United States," nor have "any effect other or
further than as a release of all claims of title by the United
States," and that "no private right of any person as between
himself and other claimants or persons" should be "in any manner
affected thereby." And in § 13 it was generally provided in respect
of both classes of claims that all the
Page 242 U. S. 598
proceedings in the court should be conducted and decided subject
to certain enumerated restrictions, among which were the
following:
"Fourth. No claim shall be allowed for any land the right to
which has hitherto been lawfully acted upon and decided by
Congress, or under its authority. Fifth. No proceeding, decree, or
act under this act shall conclude or affect the private rights of
persons as between each other, all of which rights shall be
reserved and saved to the same effect as if this act had not been
passed; but the proceedings, decrees, and acts herein provided for
shall be conclusive of all rights as between the United States and
all persons claiming any interest or right in such lands."
In view of these provisions, it is very plain that the Court of
Private Land Claims was without any power to revise the action of
Congress in confirming a particular grant, or to confirm another
grant for the same lands or any part of them, or to determine the
rights of private persons, as between themselves, to such lands.
This Court has frequently so held, and has pointed out that a
decision by that court sustaining a claim for lands as to which
Congress already had confirmed another claim would not conclude
anyone, but would be void because in excess of the court's power.
United States v. Conway, 175 U. S. 60;
Ainsa v. New Mexico & Arizona R. Co., 175 U. S.
76,
175 U. S. 90;
Las Animas Land Grant Co. v. United States, 179 U.
S. 201,
179 U. S.
205-206;
United States v. Baca, 184 U.
S. 653,
184 U. S. 659.
In the last case, it was said:
"The manifest intent of Congress appears to have been that with
any land of the right to which Congress, in the exercise of its
lawful discretion, had itself assumed the decision, the Court of
Private Land Claims should have nothing to do. The whole
jurisdiction conferred upon that court is to confirm or reject
claims presented to it coming within the act. All the powers
conferred upon it are incident to the exercise of that
jurisdiction. When it has
Page 242 U. S. 599
no jurisdiction to confirm or reject, it has no authority to
inquire into or pass upon the case beyond the decision of the
question of jurisdiction. The peremptory declaration of Congress,
that 'no claim shall be allowed for any land, the right to which
has hitherto been lawfully acted upon and decided by Congress'
necessarily prohibits the court from passing upon the merits of any
such claim."
In confirming the La Joya grant and supervising its survey, the
court proceeded in evident contravention of that prohibition, for
it extended the confirmation and survey to about 11,000 acres of
lands within the Belen grant which had been confirmed by Congress
and patented long before the Act of 1891 was passed. In this
respect, therefore the court overstepped its jurisdiction. and its
action was void.
As making for a different conclusion, the plaintiff contends
first that, consistently with the limitations imposed, it was quite
admissible for the court to determine and establish the common
boundary between the two grants, and second that, by protesting
against the original survey, the owners of the Belen grant invited
the court to act in the matter, and therefore were bound by its
decision. But neither contention can be sustained. The Court of
Private Land Claims was bound to respect the Belen grant as
confirmed by Congress and described in the patent. It was not given
any power to reduce the area of that grant, or to make any
decisions respecting its boundaries that would affect private
rights in the grant. On the contrary, it was prohibited from doing
so. And, of course, the owners of the grant could not, by any act
or consent of theirs, enlarge the power of the court as defined in
the act creating it.
It follows that the state courts rightly refused to regard the
action of the Court of Private Land Claims as in any way conclusive
of the rights of the owners of the Belen grant in the area in
conflict.
Page 242 U. S. 600
Whether the persons who appeared in the La Joya proceeding and
objected to the original survey were authorized to represent or
speak for all who were interested in the Belen grant seems to have
been a disputed question, but as its decision would not affect the
result here, it requires no further notice.
Judgment affirmed.