1. The questions where the line run by a survey lies upon the
ground, and whether a particular tract lies on one side of it or
the other, are questions of fact upon which this Court will accept
the concurrent findings of the district court and circuit court of
appeals unless clear error is shown. P.
264 U. S.
211.
2. The general rule is that, in matters of boundary, calls for
natural objects and fixed monuments control those for distances,
and calls for courses prevail over those for distances.
Id.
3. After a tract of land has been surveyed and patented by the
United States, its boundary cannot be affected, to the prejudice of
the owner, by surveys and rulings of the Land Department. P.
264 U. S.
212.
285 F. 128 affirmed.
Page 264 U. S. 207
Appeal from a decree of the circuit court of appeals affirming a
decree of the district court for the defendants in a suit by the
United States to quiet title to land.
Page 264 U. S. 208
MR. JUSTICE SANFORD delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is a suit in equity brought by the United States in the
Federal District Court for New Mexico to quiet title
Page 264 U. S. 209
to a large strip of land claimed as part of the public lands.
The defendants claim title under the "Mora Grant," which was
segregated from the public domain by a patent issued in 1876. The
United States does not challenge the validity of the grant, and
admits that the west boundary of the grant is the east line of the
public lands. The sole question is whether the strip of land in
dispute lies within the limits of the grant. [
Footnote 1] This depends entirely upon the
location of the west boundary of the grant.
The Mora Grant was originally a community grant made by the
Republic of Mexico in 1835. The west boundary was described as "the
Estillero." After the cession to the United States by the treaty of
Guadalupe Hidalgo, the claim under this grant was confirmed by
Congress by the Act of June 21, 1860, c. 167, 12 Stat. 71. The
grant was surveyed in 1861 by Thomas Means, a Deputy United States
Surveyor, under instructions of the United States Surveyor General
for New Mexico. The patent, after setting forth the descriptive
notes of Means' survey, authenticated by the Surveyor General,
granted to the patentees "the tract of land embraced and described
in the foregoing survey" covering an area of more than 800,000
acres. [
Footnote 2]
The survey describes the west boundary as a line more than
thirty-three miles long, running south from the northwest corner, a
point "inaccessible in the mountain, and not set," passing
successively at given distances, a large stone marked W.B.M.G. and
EO., with given bearings to aspen and pine trees marked W.B.M.G.,
and Estillero and a stone marked W.B.M.G.; a trail to Picuris; the
Pueblo River, and a large stone at the foot of a high mountain,
marked W.B.M.G., and ending at a large stone on the bank of the
Sapello River marked S.W.C.M.G.
Page 264 U. S. 210
The defendants contend that the west boundary as surveyed by
Means is a north and south line passing through "the Estillero,"
and now established by stones marked by Means and by the natural
objects called for in the survey. The government contends that it
is located more than three miles farther east, as established by a
survey made for the government by one Compton in 1909.
The district judge, in an opinion reviewing the evidence, found
that "the Estillero," at which Means was instructed to establish
the west boundary of the grant, is a place in the valley of the
Pueblo River; that no monuments were found on or near the so-called
Compton line, and that the west boundary
"being established from the evidence on the ground -- that is,
natural objects -- the Estillero, the trail to Picuris, and Pueblo
River, and the permanent monuments, stone marked EO on one side and
W.B.M.G. on the other, stone marked W.B.M.G. and stone south of the
Pueblo marked W.B.M.G., all now being located in the relative
positions called for in the patent, these calls for natural objects
and permanent monuments on the ground definitely located"
must control. He therefore concluded that the west boundary of
the grant is a north and south line drawn through the monuments set
by Means in 1861 at the Estillero on the Pueblo River and now in
place on the ground, and that the United States, by the patent, had
conveyed the land lying east of this line, and has no title
thereto. A decree was accordingly entered in favor of the
defendants quieting their title to the land in dispute against any
adverse claim of the United States. [
Footnote 3]
On an appeal taken by the United States, the circuit court of
appeals, again reviewing the evidence, concurred in the finding of
the district court as to the location of the Estillero; found that
the so-called Compton line ran about three miles east of the
monuments at the
Page 264 U. S. 211
Estillero, did not cross the Pueblo River, and was "without
support," and held that the west boundary of the grant is "the
north and south line through Means' monuments at the Estillero," as
had been found by the district court. The decree of that court was
accordingly affirmed. 285 F. 128.
1. The questions where the line run by a survey lies on the
ground, and whether any particular tract is on one side or the
other of that line, are questions of fact.
Russell v. Land
Grant Co., 158 U. S. 253,
158 U. S. 259.
In the present case, both the district court and the circuit court
of appeals have found, from the evidence, that the west line of
Means' survey lies upon the ground in the location claimed by the
defendants, and that the land in dispute is east of that line and
within the boundary of the grant. Under the well settled rule,
these concurrent findings on questions of fact will be accepted by
this Court unless clear error is shown.
Wright-Blodgett Co. v.
United States, 236 U. S. 397,
236 U. S. 402;
Bodkin v. Edwards, 255 U. S. 221,
255 U. S. 223;
Brewer Oil Co. v. United States, 260 U. S.
77,
260 U. S. 86. An
examination of the evidence, which need not be recited here,
discloses no such error, and, on the contrary, leads us to the
conclusion that the findings of the lower courts are in accordance
with the greater weight of the testimony.
2. These findings, although extending the lines of the grant
farther west and south than the distances called for in the survey,
do not involve any erroneous application of the law. The west line
of the grant was correctly located by reference to the Estillero,
the marked stones, and the natural objects called for. The general
rule is that, in matters of boundaries, calls for natural objects
and fixed monuments control those for distances.
Newsom v.
Pryor, 7 Wheat. 7,
20 U. S. 9;
Higuera v. United
States, 5 Wall. 827,
72 U. S. 835;
Security Land Co. v. Burns, 193 U.
S. 167,
193 U. S. 179;
Silver King Co. v. Conkling Co., 255 U.
S. 151,
255 U. S. 161;
Watkins
Page 264 U. S. 212
v. King, 118 F. 524, 536;
United States v.
Development Co., 254 F. 656, 658. And calls for courses
likewise prevail over those for distances.
Ewart v.
Squire, 239 F. 34, 36. No ground appears here for any
exception to these rules.
3. The district court did not err in refusing to admit public
land surveys made in 1882 as evidence showing the closing of such
surveys on the west boundary of the grant, and decisions of the
Land Department holding that its west boundary was along the line
run by Compton. Although the power to correct surveys of the public
land belongs to the political department of the government, and the
Land Department has jurisdiction to decide as to such matters while
the land is subject to its supervision and before it takes final
action,
Cragin v. Powell, 128 U.
S. 691,
128 U. S. 698;
Knight v. Land Association, 142 U.
S. 161,
142 U. S. 177;
Kirwan v. Murphy, 189 U. S. 35,
189 U. S. 54,
this power of supervision and correction by the Department is
"subject to the necessary and decided limitation" that, when it has
once made and approved a governmental survey of public lands and
has disposed of them, the courts may protect the private rights
acquired against interference by corrective surveys subsequently
made by the Department.
Cragin v. Powell, supra, p.
128 U. S. 699.
A resurvey by the United States after the issuance of a patent does
not affect the rights of the patentee, the government, after
conveyance of the lands, having "no jurisdiction to intermeddle
with them in the form of a second survey."
Kean v. Canal
Co., 190 U. S. 452,
190 U. S. 461.
And although the United States, so long as it has not conveyed its
land, may survey and resurvey what it owns, and establish and
reestablish boundaries, what it thus does is "for its own
information" and "cannot affect the rights of owners on the other
side of the line already existing."
Lane v. Darlington,
249 U. S. 331,
249 U. S.
333.
The decree of the circuit court of appeals is
Affirmed.
[
Footnote 1]
The parties stipulated at the hearing that title to the land in
dispute is either in the United States or in the defendants.
[
Footnote 2]
With certain exceptions and reservations which are not here
material.
[
Footnote 3]
This relief was prayed in the defendants' answer.