Where the clear weight of the proof is against the possession or
occupation by the grantee of land in California, the date of the
grant was altered without any explanation of the alteration, and
the genuineness of the signature of the governor to a certificate
of approval of the departmental assembly doubted, this Court will
reverse the decree of the court below confirming the claim, and
remit it for further evidence and examination.
Page 63 U. S. 90
The history and nature of the case are stated in the opinion of
the Court.
Page 63 U. S. 94
MR. JUSTICE NELSON delivered the opinion of the Court.
The appellees, who derived their title from Juan N. Padilla, the
original grantee, presented their claim before the board of land
commissioners in 1852 for five square leagues of land known by the
name of Bolsa de Tomales, situate in the County of Sonoma,
California. The board, after hearing the proofs, decreed in favor
of the claim, which, on appeal to the district judge, was
affirmed.
The documentary evidence of the title includes a petition to the
governor for the tract, dated at Monterey, May 14, 1846,
accompanied with a certificate of Manuel Castro, prefect, that
Page 63 U. S. 95
the land was vacant and grantable, dated same place, 10th same
month; a marginal reference for information by the governor, Pio
Pico, dated Los Angeles, 20 May, 1846; a note of concession, dated
same place, 12 June, 1846; and a formal title, dated same time and
place, both signed by the governor, and J. M. Moreno, secretary
ad interim.
Proof was given of the signatures of the governor and secretary,
and that these papers were found among the Mexican archives, which
had been transferred to the custody of the Surveyor General of the
United States for California.
The original grant of the formal title to the grantee was given
in evidence by the claimants, dated Los Angeles, 12th February,
1846; also, a certificate of the governor and secretary, of the
approval on the 12th June by the departmental assembly dated 14
June, 1846.
Some attempt was made to prove possession and occupation by
Padilla before and since the date of the grant, which were denied
by the government. The clear weight of the proof in the case is
against any possession or occupation. The two witnesses in support
of it, aside from Padilla, clearly confounded the possession of the
ranch of Padilla, called the Roblar de la Miseria, with that of the
Bolsa de Tomales, both of which are in the same section of country.
Padilla states that he had possession of the land in 1844, built on
it in that year; that he cultivated the land, and had cattle on it
from that time until he sold it to Molena and Berreyesa, in the
latter part of the year 1848, or beginning of the year 1849. In
this he is expressly contradicted by some half a dozen witnesses,
some of whom cannot be mistaken as to the facts. It appears from
the evidence that Padilla, at the breaking out of the disturbances
in the early part of 1846, adhered to the Mexican government, and
was charged with having been concerned in killing some Americans in
the fore part of that year, was pursued by an American force, and
fled from that part of the country, and did not return until after
the war.
See also the testimony of Padilla in the case of
the claim of Josefa de Haro and others, No. 101, before the board
of commissioners,
and see his grant of Roblar de la
Miseria, 25 November, 1845.
Page 63 U. S. 96
It is admitted that the original grant of the title in form,
which was in the hands of the claimants, has been altered so as to
bear date the 12th February, instead of the 12th June, 1846. No
explanation was given of the alteration, though it was apparent on
the face of the paper.
The genuineness of the signature of the governor, Pio Pico, to
the certificate of the approval of the departmental assembly, was
doubted by the board of commissioners.
The board said, after alluding to the alteration of the date of
the grant,
"There are many things connected with the claim which, under the
conclusion at which the commission has arrived, were not altogether
satisfactory. The time when the grant was made, only a few days
before the Americans took possession of the country, the evident
and palpable attempt to alter the date so as to make it appear
several months anterior to the time when it was issued, and the
manifest want of similarity in the signatures of Pio Pico to the
papers of approval, with the usual mode of signing his name, are
circumstances which greatly detract from the good faith of the
claim. The evidence, however, they say, makes out a
prima
facie case, which, in the absence of any rebutting testimony,
entitles the petitioners to a decree of confirmation."
The Court is of opinion that, in consideration of the doubtful
character of the claim, and entire want of any merits upon the
testimony, the decree of the court below should be
Reversed and the case remitted for further evidence and
examination.