The only cases which will be taken up out of their regular order
on the docket are those where the question in dispute will
embarrass the operations of the government while it remains
unsettled.
But if the court below, to which a mandate is sent, does not
proceed to execute it or disobeys and mistakes its meaning, the
party aggrieved may, by motion for a mandamus, at any time, bring
the errors or omissions before this Court for correction.
No appeal will lie from any order or decision of the court below
which is not a final decree.
The decree of the court below, in the present case, was not a
final decree.
The jurisdiction of the Board of Commissioners for the
Settlement of Private Land Claims in California, and of the courts
of the United States on appeal, extends not only to the
adjudication of questions relating to the genuineness and
authenticity of the grant, and others of a similar character, but
also all questions relating to its location and boundaries, and
does not terminate until the issue of a patent conformably to the
decree.
It is the duty of the Surveyor General to cause all private
claims which shall be finally confirmed to be accurately surveyed,
and to furnish plats of the same.
This was the same case which was before this Court at the
preceding term, and is reported in
61 U. S. 20 How.
413. The position of the case is explained in the second opinion of
the Court, as delivered by MR. JUSTICE CAMPBELL.
Being so down upon the docket as that there was no probability
of reaching it in the regular order of business, a motion was made
to take it up out of its regular turn.
Page 62 U. S. 446
Upon this motion, MR. CHIEF JUSTICE TANEY delivered the opinion
of the Court.
According to the rules and practice of the Court, no case can be
taken up out of its order on the docket, where private interests
only are concerned. The only cases in which they will depart from
this rule are those where the question in dispute will embarrass
the operations of the government while it remains unsettled. But
when a case is sent to the court below by a mandate from this
Court, no appeal will lie from any order or decision of the court
until it has passed its final decree in the case. And if the court
does not proceed to execute the mandate, or disobeys and mistakes
its meaning, the party aggrieved may, by motion for a mandamus, at
any time, bring the errors or omissions of the inferior court
before this Court for correction. Upon looking into the record in
the case of
United States v. Fossatt, the Court doubts
whether there has been a final decision under the mandate and
whether the present appeal ought not to be dismissed on that
ground. If there is no final decree, the proceedings of the court
below cannot be interrupted by an appeal from interlocutory
proceedings.
The Court therefore desires to hear the counsel upon the
question, whether the decree in question is final, upon motion to
dismiss, and will hear the argument on Monday, March 7.
MR. JUSTICE CAMPBELL delivered the opinion of the Court.
This cause came before this Court by appeal from the District
Court of the United States for the Northern District of California,
and was decided at the last term, and is reported in
61 U. S. 20 How.
413.
The court determined:
"That a grant under which the plaintiff claimed land in
California was valid for one league, to be taken within the
southern,
Page 62 U. S. 447
western, and eastern boundaries designated therein, at the
election of the grantee and his assigns, under the restrictions
established for the location and survey of private land claims in
California by the executive department of the government. The
external boundaries of the grant may be declared by the district
court from the evidence on file, and such other evidence as may be
produced before it, and the claim of an interest equal to
three-fourths of the land granted is confirmed to the
appellee."
The district court, in conformity with the directions of the
decree, declared the external lines on three sides of the tract
claimed, leaving the other line to be completed by a survey to be
made. From the decree, in this form, the United States have
appealed.
A motion has been submitted to the court for the dismissal of
the appeal, because the decree of the district court is
interlocutory, not final.
This motion is resisted because the inquiries and decrees of the
Board of Commissioners for the Settlement of Private Land Claims in
California, by the act of 3 March, 1851, 9 Stat. 632, in the first
instance, and of the courts of the United States on appeal, relate
only to the question of the validity of the claimant by validity is
meant its authenticity, legality, and in some cases interpretation,
but does not include any question of location, extent, or boundary
-- and that the district court has gone to the full limit of its
jurisdiction in the decree under consideration, if it has not
already exceeded it.
The matter submitted by Congress to the inquiry and
determination of the board of commissioners, by the Act of 3 March,
1851, 9 Stat. 632, sec. 8, and to the courts of the United States
on appeal, by that act and the Act of 31 August, 1852, 10 Stat. 99,
sec. 12, are the claims "of each and every person in California, by
virtue of any right or title derived from the Spanish or Mexican
government." And it will be at once understood that these
comprehend all private claims to land in California.
The effect of the inquiry and decision of these tribunals upon
the matter submitted is final and conclusive. If unfavorable
Page 62 U. S. 448
to the claimant, the land "shall be deemed, held, and
considered, as a part of the public domain of the United States,"
but if favorable, the decrees rendered by the commissioners or the
courts "shall be conclusive between the United States and the
claimants."
These acts of Congress do not create a voluntary jurisdiction
that the claimant may seek or decline. All claims to land that are
withheld from the board of commissioners during the legal term for
presentation, are treated as nonexistent, and the land as belonging
to the public domain.
Thus it appears that the right and title of the inhabitants of
California, at the date of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, to land
within its limits, with the exception of some within the limits of
a pueblo or corporation described in the 14th section of the Act of
3 March, 1851, must undergo the scrutiny of this board, and that
its decisions are subject to review in the district and supreme
courts. This jurisdiction comprehends every species of title or
right, whether inchoate or complete; whether resting in contract or
evinced by authentic act and judicial possession.
The object of this inquiry was not to discover forfeitures or to
enforce rigorous conditions. The declared purpose was to
authenticate titles, and to afford the solid guarantee to rights
which ensues from their full acknowledgment by the supreme
authority. The tribunals were therefore enjoined to proceed
promptly, and to render judgment upon the pleadings and evidence;
and in deciding, they were to be governed by the laws of nations,
the stipulations of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, the laws,
usages, and customs, of the government from which the claim is
derived, the principles of equity, and the decisions of the Supreme
Court of the United States in similar cases.
What are the questions involved in the inquiry into the validity
of a claim to land?
It is obvious that the answer to this question must depend, in a
great measure, upon the state and condition of the evidence. It may
present questions of the genuineness and authenticity of the title,
and whether the evidence is forged or fraudulent, or it may involve
an inquiry into the authority of
Page 62 U. S. 449
the officer to make a grant, or whether he was in the exercise
of the faculties of his office when it was made; or, it may
disclose questions of the capacity of the grantee to take, or
whether the claim has been abandoned or is a subsisting title, or
has been forfeited for a breach of conditions. Questions of each
kind here mentioned have been considered by the court in cases
arising under this law.
But in addition to these questions upon the vitality of the
title, there may arise questions of extent, quantity, location,
boundary, and legal operation that are equally essential in
determining the validity of the claim.
In affirming a claim to land under a Spanish or Mexican grant,
to be valid within the law of nations, the stipulations of the
Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, and the usages of those governments,
we imply something more than that certain papers are genuine,
legal, and translative of property. We affirm that ownership and
possession of land of definite boundaries rightfully attach to the
grantee.
In the case of
United States v.
Arredondo, 6 Pet. 691, the inquiries of this Court,
beside those affirming the legality of the grant, extended to
questions of forfeiture for the nonfulfillment of conditions, the
inalienability of lands in possession of an Indian tribe, and
fraud. The Superior Court of Florida in that suit directed that the
land should be surveyed in the form of a square with a designated
monument as the center. This Court annulled that decree and
ascertained another as the central point. The appeal in
Mitchell v. United
States, 15 Pet. 52, was taken in a case that had
been decided here and in which an issue upon the decree that
succeeded the mandate of this Court, and made in execution of it,
subsequently arose. Certain property about Fort St. Mark's was
excepted in the original decree of confirmation and reserved to the
United States, and the superior court in that decree was directed
to ascertain the extent and boundaries of the land reserved. This
was done and the land specifically described, and on appeal this
decree was affirmed.
These questions arose upon an act of Congress that required the
courts,
"by a final decree to settle and determine the question
Page 62 U. S. 450
of the validity of the title according to the law of nations,
the stipulations of any treaty and proceedings under the same, the
several acts of Congress in relation thereto, and the laws and
ordinances of the government from which it is alleged to have been
derived."
This act enumerates as proper to be heard and decided,
preliminary to such a decree, questions of extent, location, and
boundary. 4 Stat. 52, sec. 2
It is asserted on the part of the appellants that the district
court has no means to ascertain the specific boundaries of a
confirmed claim, and no power to enforce the execution of its
decree, and consequently cannot proceed further in the cause than
it has done.
The 13th section of the Act of 3 March, 1851, makes it the duty
of the Surveyor General to cause all private claims which shall be
finally confirmed to be accurately surveyed, and to furnish plats
of the same. It was the practice under the acts of 1824 and 1828, 4
Stat. 52, 284, for the court to direct their mandates specifically
to the surveyor designated in those acts. And in the case
Ex parte Sibbald v. United
States, 12 Pet. 488, the duty of the surveyor to
fulfill the decree of the court, and the power of the court to
enforce the discharge of that duty, are declared and maintained.
The duties of the surveyor begin under the same conditions, and are
declared in similar language, in the acts of 1824, 1828, and of
1851.
The opinion of the Court is that the power of the district court
over the cause, under the acts of Congress, does not terminate
until the issue of a patent, conformably to the decree.
In the exercise of the jurisdiction conferred by this act, and
acts of a similar character, this Court has habitually revised
decrees of the district court, which were not final decrees under
the Judiciary Act of 1789. The court has uniformly accepted, in the
first instance, as a final decree, one that ascertained the
authenticity of the claimant's title, and declared, in general
terms, its operation, leaving the questions of boundary and
location to be settled subsequently. This practice was approved in
the case last cited. The peculiar nature of these cases rendered
such a relaxation of the rules of proceeding of the court
appropriate. The United States did not appear in
Page 62 U. S. 451
the courts as a contentious litigant; but as a great nation,
acknowledging their obligation to recognize as valid every
authentic title, and soliciting exact information to direct their
executive government to comply with that obligation.
They had instrumentalities adequate to the fulfillment of their
engagements without delay, whenever their existence was duly
ascertained. There was no occasion for the strict rules of
proceeding that experience has suggested to secure a speedy and
exact administration between suitors of a different character. And
it has rarely occurred that the same case has reappeared in the
court after the first decree. If the litigation had been other than
it was, the rule of proceeding would have varied with it.
But, after the authenticity of the grant is ascertained in this
Court, and a reference has been made to the district court, to
determine the external bounds of the grant, in order that the final
confirmation may be made, we cannot understand upon what principle
an appeal can be claimed until the whole of the directions of this
Court are complied with, and that decree made. It would lead to
vexatious and unjust delays to sanction such a practice. It is the
opinion of the court that this appeal was improvidently taken and
allowed, and must be dismissed; and that the district court proceed
to ascertain the external lines of the land confirmed to the
appellee, and enter a final decree of confirmation of that
land.