Rodrigues v. United States
Annotate this Case
68 U.S. 582 (1863)
U.S. Supreme Court
Rodrigues v. United States, 68 U.S. 1 Wall. 582 582 (1863)
Rodrigues v. United States
68 U.S. (1 Wall.) 582
A question of fact, to-wit, of the location of survey in a previously confirmed Mexican grant, prior to the examination and decision of which, the court sets forth the difficulties which attend any satisfactory determination of this class of California cases.
This was a case of conflicting land claims in California, and came here on appeal from a decree of the District Court for the Northern District of California, locating, by survey, under the Act of Congress of June 14, 1860, a previously confirmed Mexican grant. The case, to understand which even imperfectly the reader must refer to a map opposite, was essentially thus:
In 1833, Mexico granted to Gonzales the tract marked A, whose southern boundary was the Creek or Arroyo de Butano. In 1838, the same government, Alvarado being then governor, made a provisional concession to Ramona Sanchez for a league square, describing the tract as "known by the name of "Butano," which tract, in 1848, Governor Micheltorena granted to her, reciting his deed to be the ratification of the provisional title given to her, from the year 1838, to the tract of land granted her, called Buttano, bordering on the rancho of the heirs of the deceased Simeon Castro, on the Serrania (or ridge of mountains) and the sea." Sanchez had solicited the land in 1837, asking for a league in length and half a league in breadth. In 1842, between the dates last above named, the government granted a tract also to the Simeon Castro just above named. It is described as "bordering to the east on the Sierra, to the west on the sea, on the north on the rancho of Don Juan Gonzales, and to the south on that of Don Ylaria Buelna." Reference was made, on the grant of each tract, to the disenos or maps annexed to the original petitions, but these maps, like most of the disenos attached to Mexican espedientes, were very rough sketches, and in the present case were of imperfect value, except, perhaps, as indicating, to a greater or less degree, that the grant to Sanchez was between two "arroyos," or streams, which might be held to correspond with the streams known on better maps as the Arroyo
or Creek Butano, and the Arroyo or Creek de los Frijoles. Undoubtedly upon a tract of about half a league, marked No. 1, between those two streams, and bordering on the sea, Sanchez had settled and resided from 1837. Still, a reference to the map will show that if Castro's north boundary was that called for by his grant, to-wit, "the rancho of Don Juan Gonzales," then there was no place for Sanchez upon the Butano Creek (from which stream her tract obviously derived its name), in any such way as to border "on the rancho of the heirs of the deceased Don Simeon Castro, on the Serrania, and on the sea." The whole tract up to that creek belonged to Castro, and it had in fact been confirmed, surveyed, and patented to him, though neither Sanchez nor Rodrigues were parties to any of the proceedings, and these were had prior to the 14th June, 1860, when Congress passed an act authorizing anybody to call into court and to contest any survey afterwards to be made. [Footnote 1] The difficulty therefore was to bring Castro's tract up north, so as to "border on the north on the rancho of Don Juan Gonzales," itself bounded on the south by the Butano Creek, and at the same time give to Sanchez, or rather to Rodrigues, who had succeeded to her rights, a league between the Butano and the tract of Castro. The thing was plainly impossible. However, to give him a league somewhere, and at the same time to leave Castro in enjoyment of all that he claimed and up to the Butano, Rodrigues' tract was located as indicated by the plot No. 2 -- that is to say, was made a long, narrow tract, north of the Butano and east of Gonzales. This tract was upon the Butano, in part; and it was "bordering on the rancho of the heirs of the deceased Don Simeon Castro, on the Serrania," both in part. But the sea; where was it? It touched the tract nowhere, and the tract was not the one which Ramona Sanchez had settled on and occupied, whose general locality is indicated by the plot No. 1. [Footnote 2] This location, No. 2, was set aside. Rodrigues was next located on the old tract of Sanchez again, it being now assumed that some error had
taken place in giving Castro's north boundary, and that while this boundary was really a creek, that creek was not the Butano, but another one, to-wit, the Frijoles, south of it. It was among the facts of the case that the land granted to Castro had been originally two tracts, with different names, and that for the north one a concession had issued to a certain Bernal, who surrendered his rights to Castro, by whom a final grant for both under one name was obtained. The original papers, moreover, gave some indications, which, compared by modern surveys of the Pacific coast, tended to show that the tract did not go up to the Butano, and that the northern boundary of one of the tracts was the Frijoles. But everything was more or less obscure. The representatives of Castro had excepted to this location of Rodrigues on No. 1, contending that all up to the Butano was theirs, and that no one else should be put upon it. Superadded to the difficulties just mentioned there was another, to-wit, that admitting Rodrigues to be rightly located between the Butano and the Frijoles, there was not enough land between those two creeks, which were small and did not run far back, to give him much more than half a league of land, whereas the grant called for a whole one. What was to be done, in view of the fact that the Butano and the Frijoles were natural boundaries, having unquestionable owners on the north and south of them respectively, and that on the east was the Sierra, or mountain range, of no use to anyone, and of less than none, if she had to take care of it, to a woman like Ramona Sanchez, who in her petition represented herself as a "desamparada mujer," an unprotected woman, who asked for the land, as "un sitio valdio aproposito pa contener en el su ganado y hacer algunos labores pa subvenir a la mantencion de su familia;" "a vacant place, adapted to keep my cattle and carry on some husbandry for the maintenance of my family?" From what quarter was the deficit to come? A third survey was now made, and assuming that as the tract was only "bordering on the Serrania," the government meant that it should not include any considerable part of it, as it would do if the required half league was located east of the half on the sea,
the surveyor turned the courses round, and forming an "elbow" tract, made up the deficit by a survey upon the south part of No. 2, in the manner meant to be indicated by No. 3, and the chain lines upon the map. The south part of No. 2 had, however, been entered on by persons who meant to acquire it from right of preemption.
The case was one of obvious difficulty, and Judge Hoffman, the District Judge in California, having examined the whole case with great patience, and with a careful comparison of landmarks, and having stated at length the reasons of his conclusion, finally located the easternmost portion on the ridge, as indicated by No. 4, his decree being thus:
"That said survey (the third) be and the same is hereby set aside and rejected, and that a new survey of the tract herein confirmed be made as follows, viz.: bounding the tract"
"on the east by the Sierra, on the west, by the sea, on the south, by the Arroyo de los Frijoles, as far as the same is delineated upon the diseno, and thence by the shortest distance to the Sierra, and on the north by the Arroyo Butano, as far as the same is delineated as a boundary upon the diseno, and thence (crossing that stream) by such line or lines as will include the area of one square league."
From this decree Rodrigues, representing Sanchez, and claiming to have No. 2, or at least No. 3, took the appeal.
Disclaimer: Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.