This Court will not award a mandamus to the judge of the
district court commanding him to permit the intervention of one
claimant in a proceeding instituted by another for the confirmation
of a distinct title under a Mexican grant.
Thomas B. Valentine, for himself and other parties in interest,
presented his petition to the Supreme Court setting forth that he
held the title of Juan Miranda, to whom a grant was made by the
Mexican government of a tract of land in California known by the
name of the Arroyo de San Antonio; that one Ellen E. White,
administratrix of Charles White, deceased, petitioned the land
commission for confirmation to herself of another title derived
from Manuel Ortega for the same land, and her proceeding came by
appeal into this Court, where an order was made remanding the cause
to the district court so that the claimants under Miranda might
have an opportunity to contest the claim of White agreeably to the
13th section of the act of 1851; that the mandate was filed in the
district court and a motion made by the petitioner for leave to
intervene, which was refused by the district court in disregard of
the order of this Court. The petitioner, being without other
remedy, prays for a mandamus.
MR. JUSTICE GRIER.
The motion for a mandamus in this
Page 66 U. S. 502
case is founded on a mistaken apprehension of the judgment of
this Court as it is reported in
64 U. S. 23 How.
249.
Ortega had married the daughter of Miranda; they lived as one
family, and entered into possession of the land claimed. Ortega's
title purported to be founded on a petition to Governor Alvarado
dated 12 June, 1840; a reference report and marginal decree signed
by Alvarado, 10th of August, 1840, "which was returned to him to
serve as a security during the other operations indicated." It was
never completed by a final grant, and was not to be found among the
archives, but its execution was proved by Alvarado himself.
Miranda, in 1844, petitioned for a grant of the same land, alleging
that he had been in possession of the land for more than four
years. This informe was in the usual form, and is found among the
archives. The Court being divided in opinion as to the authenticity
of the Ortega title and a majority expressing a doubt, at first
decided to send the record back to the district court to have the
conflicting claims of the father and son-in-law settled by a
proceeding under the 13th section of the act of 1851. But our
attention was afterwards drawn to the fact that the proceeding
under the proviso in this section was intended only for cases where
both parties claimed under a confirmed Mexican grant by derivative
titles, and as Ortega and Miranda claimed under several and
distinct titles, the case did not come within the provisions of the
13th section. The Court then reversed the decree of the district
court, and not being fully satisfied on the evidence as to the
genuineness of Ortega's papers, sent the case back for further
examination. There was no order that a stranger to the record
should be allowed to interplead and set up another grant as a
reason why the claimant's title should not be confirmed, for it
appears from the opinion of the court that they objected to the
proceeding because the Miranda grant had been used to combat that
of Ortega in this proceeding. The first decree did not order the
court below to allow the claimants under Miranda to interplead in
this suit, and if it had done so, it was wholly annulled and set
aside by the order and decree afterwards made on the 1st of May,
1860. It was like a judgment in a common law
Page 66 U. S. 503
case, where a judgment is reversed and a
venire de novo
ordered, and the reason given by the court was "that the district
court might not be trammeled in their future consideration of the
case on all its merits."
The motion for a mandamus is therefore refused.
