1. Where a Spanish or Mexican grant of lands in California does
not identify the precise tract of land granted either by
description or by reference, the title is an imperfect one, needing
the further action of the United States government to make it
perfect. Such is the case where one side of the tract is undefined
or one of the exterior boundary lines cannot be located. An
authoritative survey is required to demonstrate the particular
tract granted.
2. A confirmation of a Spanish or Mexican grant of land in
California segregates the land, when surveyed, from the public
domain and invests the confirmee with the legal title. It entitles
him to a patent for the land as soon as the requisite survey has
been made. No other title not clothed with equal solemnities can be
set up against the confirmee or his assigns in an action of
ejectment.
3. But the equitable rights of third persons under the same
title are not cut off. They will be sustained in a court of equity
as against the confirmee and his assigns, who are chargeable with
knowledge of the said equities. The position of a confirmee is
analogous to that of a patentee under a preemption right. Equity
will hold him as a trustee for those who have equitable rights in
the land, to the extent of their interests.
4. Equitable interests must be sought not in an action of
ejectment, but in an equitable proceeding, where they can be
properly investigated with a due regard to the rights of others
which may have intervened, such as those of
bona fide
purchasers &c., ignorant of the equities existing between the
original parties.
Carpentier brought suit against Montgomery and a number of other
defendants to recover certain lands in their possession lying on
the east side of the Bay of San Francisco, and described in the
complaint. Answers were put in by the defendants severally claiming
distinct portions of the lands.
On the trial, the plaintiff deraigned title under the children
of Maria Teodora Peralta, a deceased daughter of Luis Peralta, and
proved mesne conveyances from them to the extent of an undivided
five and a half ninths of one-ninth of the land in question. But
whether the children of Maria Teodora Peralta were entitled to any
estate in the lands upon which the plaintiff could sustain an
action of ejectment against the defendants was the question.
Page 80 U. S. 481
Luis Peralta, the father of Maria Teodora, died in August, 1851,
in possession of the rancho called San Antonio (of which the
premises in question were a part), leaving four sons and four
daughters, and several grandchildren by a deceased daughter, the
said Maria Teodora. The four sons presented their petition for the
confirmation of their claim for the entire rancho to the board of
commissioners, organized under the Act of Congress of March 3,
1851, founding their claim upon certain documents establishing
their father's right to the rancho, and upon an alleged devise
thereof to them. Upon this petition the rancho was confirmed to the
said sons in divided parcels, the portion embracing the premises in
question being confirmed to Domingo and Vincente Peralta by final
decree of this Court in December Term 1856. [
Footnote 1] No final approved survey, however,
took place under the confirmation. The defendants held under the
confirmees.
On the trial, the plaintiff showed by documentary evidence from
the archives that on 20 June, 1820, Luis Peralta, who was then
sergeant of the presidio near San Francisco and commissioner of the
pueblo of San Jose presented a petition to Pablo Vincente de Sola,
then Governor of California, in which he stated that
"at the distance of eight leagues from the mission of San Jose,
in a northerly or northwesterly course along the coast, there is a
creek named by the reverend fathers of the aforesaid mission, San
Leandro, and from this to a little hill adjoining the sea beach, in
the same direction and along the coast, there may be four or five
leagues, more or less (or about), which place and land he asks and
solicits may be granted to him that he may establish a rancho, and
place thereon all his goods and chattels."
Governor Sola, on the 3d of August, 1820, ordered Captain Luis
Antonio de Arguello, commandant of the presidio, to appoint an
officer to put Sergeant Peralta
"in possession of the lands petitioned for, giving previous
notice of it to
Page 80 U. S. 482
the reverend fathers, the missionaries of the missions bordering
on said land,
and then place landmarks on the four points of
the compass, that it may be known at all times, the extent of
said lands
which have been granted to him."
On the 10th, Arguello appointed Lieutenant Martinez to execute
this decree.
On the 16th, Father Duran certified, on behalf of the mission of
San Jose, that there was no objection, on the part of that mission,
to the grant asked for by Paralta.
On the same day, Martinez certified that, having given due
notice, he
"proceeded to the said place, and in presence of the two
witnesses, Nicholas Berreyesa and Juan Miranda,
the boundaries
which separate his (Peralta's) land were marked out to him,
to-wit, the deep creek called San Leandro, and, at a distance from
this (say about five leagues), there are two small mountains
(
cerritos). The first is close to the beach; next to it
follows that of San Antonio, serving as boundaries, the rivulet
which issues from the mountain ranges, and runs along the foot of
said small mountain of San Antonio, dividing or separating the
land; and, at the entrance of the little gulch, there is a rock
elevating itself in the form of a monument, and looking towards the
north.
On both boundaries were fixed firm landmarks, and
inasmuch as this individual does not prejudice any of the adjoining
neighbors, and by virtue of the authority on me conferred, and in
the name of our Catholic Monarch, Senor Don Ferdinand VII (whom God
preserve), I put in possession of the said land the above-named
Luis Peralta."
This return was signed by him and the witnesses in testimony of
the facts.
On the 30th of August, Governor Sola, reciting that Father
Chabot, of the mission of San Francisco, alleged that Don Ignatio
Martinez had not fulfilled his decree of the 3d of August and that
through this fault, possession had been given to Peralta of some
lands pertaining to said mission, ordered that these should be
withdrawn from those which were assigned to Peralta and remain, as
they were before, in favor of the neophytes of said mission.
Page 80 U. S. 483
In a paper dated September 14, 1820, Fathers Chabot and Ordaz,
on behalf of the mission, certified that inasmuch as the mission
had had possession since the month of November of the previous
year, granted by the superior government for agricultural purposes
and the feeding of sheep, as far as a rivulet at the distance from
the house of the rancho some three and a half to four leagues in
the direction of San Jose, there was "no objection to set the
boundaries of Sergeant Luis Peralta from that place up to the creek
called San Leandro."
On the 16th of September, 1820, Lieutenant Martinez reported
that in the presence of the same witnesses, he had executed the
order of the governor of the 30 August,
"by appointing to him [Peralta] anew the boundaries at about one
and a half league from the hill of San Antonio towards that part of
San Leandro serving as the dividing line, a rivulet [the Temescal]
issuing from the mountain or hill range, which runs down to the
beach, where there is a willow grove, fixing in said place the
four landmarks, which shall be valid, and not those that
were designated before on the little mountain of San Antonio."
On the 18th October, 1822, Governor Sola certified that
"This day was issued, in favor of Sergeant Luis Peralta, by the
governor of this province, the certifying document
for the land
which had been granted to him, as appears in this folio, by the
writ of possession, which the lieutenant of his company, Don
Ignacio Martinez, gave him agreeably to an order issued him by the
government."
The certifying document recited the original petition of
Peralta, the reclamation of the fathers of the mission, the
appointment of Martinez to give possession, the performance of that
order,
"by designating the boundaries, about one league and a half from
the small hill of San Antonio, towards the part of the San Leandro
Creek serving as a dividing place, a small brook which falls from
the mountains or heights running towards the beach, where ends a
willow brake, establishing on said land the four landmarks,"
and concluded by saying that this document was given
"in order
Page 80 U. S. 484
that in all time to come it may be attested that this concession
to said Sergeant Luis Peralta was made in remuneration of forty
years of service in the military career."
On the 14th of October, 1820, Sergeant Peralta addressed a
letter to his captain, Arguello, complaining of having been
dispossessed of the land which had been assigned to him. In that
letter he insisted that he had a right to the land, and declared
that he yielded up the possession only because he was compelled to
do so. He replied also to the allegations of the fathers that he
did not need so much land by saying that "five leagues does not
seem to me much, in a narrow tract, as you know it is, from the
beach to the mountain range," &c. On 23 June, 1821, Captain
Arguello transmitted the memorial of Peralta to the governor, gave
the history of Peralta's application, insisted upon his right to
the land, and stated his claim upon the government for long and
meritorious services as a soldier.
On the 15th of May, 1823, Peralta petitioned the governor
directly, praying that "the land may be returned" to him, showing
that the reverend father of the mission had practiced a fraud to
induce the governor to dispossess him, by which he says, "I was
deprived of the best land
which had been granted to me."
He again refuted the charge that the tract was too large, by
saying,
"though it appears to be large, it is not so, for two reasons --
1st, because it is situated on the coast,
and the shore between
the beach and the top of the mountains [La Sierra] is too
narrow; 2d, because in the space lying from San Leandro to the said
cerrito redondo there is a great part of it forming high lands,
ravines, and inlets, which are not suitable for the purpose,"
&c. Upon this petition, on the 30th November, 1823, the
following order or decision was made:
"Let the land which by order of my predecessor, Senor Don Pablo
Vincente Sola, was taken from this claimant,
after having been
granted him and possession given, for that reason be returned to
him. He shall apply with this decree to the judge then
commissioned [Lieutenant Martinez] for the said possession, that
he
Page 80 U. S. 485
may comply with it. When this be done, he shall annex all the
proceedings to the expediente already formed."
"ARGUELLO"
On the 24th December, 1824, Martinez, who was the person
formerly commissioned as the judge to deliver the possession,
certified that
"In compliance with the foregoing superior decree of the
superior chief of the province, Captain Don Luis Antonio Arguello,
the land which by order of Colonel Don Pable Vincente de Sola had
been taken from Sergeant Luis Peralta has hereby been returned to
him, and he has newly been put in possession of the place called
Cerrito de San Antonio and the rivulet which crosses the place to
the coast where is a rock looking to the north; said Peralta has
received lawful possession in presence of the same witnesses who
assisted when the first possession was given to him."
On the 7th of October, 1827, Governor Echandia issued an order
requiring every individual in possession of a rancho to make a
statement describing the boundaries thereof, annexing thereto the
title of his possession and the foundation he may have for such
possession.
In pursuance thereof, Peralta returned
"a description showing the extent of the lands granted me and of
which I was placed in possession since the year 1820, to-wit, along
the coast of the mission of San Jose, in a northwesterly course,
there is a deep creek called San Leandro, forming the dividing
boundary of said mission of San Jose, thence to a small, round
mountain called San Antonio, the dividing boundary with my
neighbor, Francisco Castro, which space is a little over four
leagues long, and as it is the narrowest portion of the coast, it
at most contains half a league in breadth,
from the mountain to
the sea."
On the 11th of February, 1844, Ignacio Peralta, a son of Luis,
applied to Governor Micheltorena on behalf of his father for a new
title, stating that the title papers had been mislaid and
describing the land as the Rancho San Antonio, situated between the
mission of San Jose and San Pablo
Page 80 U. S. 486
Point, which was granted to his father by Senor Don Pablo
Vincente de Sola, and of which he was put in possession by
Lieutenant Don Ignacio Martinez by superior order, any other
authority being at that time unknown. The new grant to be
"to the extent expressed by the document of Governor Sola as
plat of survey (design) that accompanies it, including the range of
hill up to it summit, and thence to the sea."
The governor referred this petition to Jimeno, then secretary of
state, who reported that the land shown by the plat presented
had been granted twenty-two years previously, and had been
occupied by the grantee since 1819, and that there was no
objection whatever to the grant of
a new title. The
governor ordered the title to issue on the 13th of February. An
instrument was accordingly drawn, which was found in the archives,
declaring that Luis Peralta was
"the
owner in fee of said land, which is bounded as
follows, namely, on the southeast by the creek of San Leandro, on
the northwest by the creek of Los Cerritos de San Antonio (the
small hills of San Antonio), on the southwest by the sea, and on
the northeast by the tops of the hill range,"
and directing that this expediente be submitted to the
departmental assembly. But this paper was not signed by the
governor.
The plaintiff gave also parol testimony tending to prove the
following facts:
That by the grant of Sola and the other documents connected with
and preceding that grant and which had been given in evidence, the
natural objects described in the original concession and in the
possession given by Martinez could be ascertained upon the land,
and that the objects called for in the second, and reduced or
limited possession ordered and given on the representation of the
fathers of the mission of San Francisco, and which was intended to
be covered by and included in the final grant of Sola, could also
be ascertained on the ground.
That the original possession given by Martinez was bounded by
the San Leandro Creek on the south, southeast,
Page 80 U. S. 487
and east, and the crest of the hills to the gap easterly of the
monumental rock looking to the north, mentioned in the act or
certificate of possession of Martinez, on the north and
northwesterly by the creek of the cerrito of San Antonio, and on
the west by the bay of San Francisco.
That the boundaries of the restricted possession were the San
Leandro Creek on the south, southeast, and east, the Temescal Creek
on the north and northwest, and the Bay of San Francisco on the
west, and that the possession was reduced to the line of the
Temescal Creek.
That the sources of the San Leandro Creek and Temescal Creek
spring near each other, with merely a narrow dividing ridge between
them, not more than a quarter of a mile from the source of the one
to the other, and that they both empty into the bay of San
Francisco.
He also introduced the evidence of witnesses tending to prove
the delivery of possession of the rancho of San Antonio to Luis
Peralta by Lieutenant Martinez in 1820, and that possession was
formally given and the boundaries designated by Martinez in
accordance with the description thereof first herein above set
forth.
The plaintiff having rested his case, the defendants moved the
court to strike out all the evidence introduced by the plaintiff on
the ground that the same did not establish nor tend to establish a
right in the plaintiff to a verdict.
The court, having heard counsel thereon, denied the motion on
the ground that the same was irregular in practice and an evasion
of the rule against nonsuits, but stated that if the defendants
would submit their case without evidence on their part, it would
instruct the jury to render a verdict for the defendants, to which
the plaintiff excepted.
The defendants thereupon declined to offer any evidence on their
part, and the evidence was closed.
And the court thereupon, at the request of the defendants,
instructed the jury that the plaintiff had failed to establish a
case entitling him to a verdict, and that it was their duty to
return a general verdict for the defendants, to which decision and
instruction the plaintiff excepted. The jury
Page 80 U. S. 488
thereupon rendered their verdict for the defendants, and
judgment having been entered thereon, the plaintiff brought the
case here on error.
MR. JUSTICE BRADLEY delivered the opinion of the Court.
To show that Luis Peralta's title was a perfect one, the
plaintiff produced in evidence the documents on which it was
founded. They are set out in the bill of exceptions, and are the
same that were before this Court in the case of
United States
v. Peralta [
Footnote 2]
when the claim was confirmed. In that case, the court intimated an
opinion that the title was perfect for at least a part of the
rancho (embracing a part of the premises now in question), but the
point was not material in the case, because the claimants were
equally entitled to a confirmation whether their father's title was
perfect or imperfect, legal or equitable, so that the intimation
was
Page 80 U. S. 489
nothing but an
obiter dictum of the judge who delivered
the opinion. The title, in some of its aspects, again came before
the Supreme Court of California in 1864 in the case of
Minturn
v. Brower, [
Footnote 3]
but, as both parties in that case deemed it their interest to
concede the title to be a perfect one, the observations of the
court on the subject cannot be regarded as precluding further
examination. Such examination, exhaustive in its character, was
given in 1870 by the same court on this identical title, and on the
very point in question, in the case of
Banks v. Moreno,
[
Footnote 4] and the court,
with all the documents before it which have been proven in this
case, decided that the title was imperfect. If this were a case
depending merely on the local land laws of California, we should be
bound by that decision. But as the appellant, in case the title is
adjudged a perfect one, invokes the guaranty stipulations of the
Treaty of Guadaloupe Hidalgo in his favor, independent of any
action of the commissioners, the question ceases to be a mere local
one and devolves upon this Court the duty of deciding it on its
merits. An examination, however, of the reasoning of the Supreme
Court of California in the case last cited satisfies us of its
soundness. The point of the decision is that the rancho of San
Antonio never had any clearly defined boundary on the east. In this
we concur with that court. The new claim now made to extend that
boundary beyond the crest of the mountain, and to take in the
eastern slope on the pretense that the Leandro Creek is the
boundary to its ultimate source, is itself conclusive to show the
uncertainty with which it has always been invested.
Luis Peralta's occupation of the rancho goes back to 1820. In
that year, he presented to Governor De Sola his petition for a
grant, describing the tract as follows:
"At the distance of eight leagues from the mission of San Jose,
in a northerly or northwesterly course along the coast, there is a
creek named by the reverend fathers of the aforesaid mission, San
Leandro, and from this to a little hill adjoining the sea beach
Page 80 U. S. 490
in the same direction and along the coast -- there may be four
or five leagues more or less, or about -- which place and land he
asks and solicits may be granted to him that he may establish a
rancho."
Here certainly is nothing definite. Supposing the creek, San
Leandro, as the point of beginning, and the little hill four or
five leagues beyond, as fixed and ascertained points; and suppose
the shore of the bay on the west to be meant for the boundary on
that side; there is no hint of a boundary on the east. Nor is the
quantity specified. Had that been done, perhaps it might have
enabled a surveyor to fix a boundary by relation. This is the first
and original document on which the title is based -- the foundation
of all the rest.
Upon this petition, the governor, by an order of August 3, 1820,
directs Captain Arguello to appoint an officer to put Sergeant Luis
Peralta in possession of the lands petitioned for, and to "place
landmarks on the four points of the compass, that it may be known
at all times the extent of said lands which have been granted to
him." Lieutenant Martinez being detailed for this service, on the
16th of August, 1820, reports his action as follows:
"The boundaries which separate his land were marked to him,
to-wit: the deep creek called San Leandro, and at a distance from
this (say about five leagues), there are two small mountains
(cerritos). The first is close to the beach; next to it
follows that of San Antonio, serving as boundaries, the rivulet
which issues from the mountain ranges, and runs along the foot of
said small mountain of San Antonio, dividing or separating the
land; and at the entrance of the little gulch there is a rock
elevating itself in the form of a monument, and looking towards the
north. On both boundaries were fixed firm landmarks. . . . I put in
possession of the said land the above named Luis Peralta."
Here we have, again, the two extremities of the tract along the
bay, the creek San Leandro at one end and the rivulet that runs by
the cerritos at the other, and nothing more.
Next we have a complaint of the fathers of the San Francisco
mission that Peralta has been put in possession of a
Page 80 U. S. 491
portion of their land at the north end of the tract, the result
of which is that Peralta is limited on the north to the Temescal
Creek, or Willow Grove Creek, about a league and a half south of
the cerritos. This occurred in September, 1820.
On the 18th of October, an entry was made in the public records
to the effect that
"This day was issued in favor of Sergeant Luis Peralta, by the
governor of this province, the
certifying document for the
land which has been granted to him, as appears in this folio by the
writ of possession, which the lieutenant of his company, Don
Ignacio Martinez, gave him agreeably to an order issued by the
government."
We also have the certifying document itself of the same date,
which adds nothing to the definiteness of the description.
Now the grant on which the appellant's counsel relies as
conferring perfect title is not the certifying document above
referred to, but the previous act of directing possession to be
given to Peralta and the actual delivery of possession to him. It
is perfectly manifest that Peralta could not have been put into
manual possession of several leagues of land. He could only have
been put into possession of a certain part or parts in the name of
all, and the exterior boundaries of the tract must have been
indicated by language or monuments. But we have no evidence of any
description of boundaries or monuments to designate them except the
bay on one side and the extreme limits of the tract along the bay.
The interior line between those limits is entirely wanting in all
the documents thus far presented. The title relied on therefore is
necessarily imperfect, and requires some authoritative survey to
distinguish what was intended to be granted from what remained in
the public domain.
If we examine the remaining documents, we shall not derive any
material aid to help us out of the difficulty.
In October, 1820, Peralta addressed a remonstrance to the
governor against the curtailing of his tract on the north. The only
expression which this paper contains going to show what the tract
was which Peralta supposed was granted to him are the
following:
"The reverend father says to the
Page 80 U. S. 492
honorable governor that I do not need the land, and that I
occupy a great extent; but I would represent that five leagues does
not seem to me much
in a narrow tract, as you know it is, from
the beach to the mountain range, and that not all of it is
good, as my lieutenant is aware, for great portions contain hills,
creeks, and ravines, not fit for the purpose."
This would seem to indicate that the rancho extended from the
bay to the
foot of the mountain.
In 1823, whilst the revolution was in progress, Peralta's
captain, Arguello, had become Governor of California, and Peralta
renewed his application to have the curtailment of his rancho
annulled. He speaks of the tract which he originally applied for,
as follows:
"Which tract of land, though it appears to be large, is not so,
for two reasons: 1st. Because it is situate on the coast, and
the space between the beach and the top of the mountain is too
narrow."
This would indicate the top of the mountain as his supposed
boundary. The governor promptly made an order that the part which
had been taken from him should be restored, and Lieutenant Martinez
put him in possession accordingly, but nothing yet appears in the
lieutenant's return or elsewhere to identify or fix the eastern
boundary of the rancho, much less to fix it beyond the eastern
slope of the mountain, as since claimed by the parties.
In 1827, some new regulations made it necessary for every
proprietor to make a return of all lands occupied by him, with the
titles annexed, and in December of that year, Peralta made a return
accordingly, describing his rancho as follows:
"Along the coast of the mission of San Jose in a northwesterly
course, there is a deep creek called San Leandro, forming the
dividing boundary of said mission of San Jose; thence to a small
round mountain called San Antonio, the dividing boundary with my
neighbor Francisco Castro, which space is a little over four
leagues long, and, as it is the narrowest portion of the coast, it
at most contains half a league in breadth from the mountain to the
sea."
In 1844, Ignacio Peralta, on behalf of his father, whose title
papers he says were mislaid, petitioned the then governor,
Page 80 U. S. 493
Micheltorena, to order the issue of a new title, extending to
the top of the range, and accompanies his petition with a
diseno, or rough map of the property. The governor ordered
a grant to issue, as requested, extending to the top of the hill
range, but not to prohibit the inhabitants of the
Contra
Costa from cutting wood for their own use. This order was not
signed by the governor, and seems never to have been carried into
execution. And this is the last of the documents on which the
plaintiff, the now appellant, relied for a perfect title. Leaving
out the proceedings of 1844, which are admitted to be imperfect, no
human being can tell from the language of the various documents
what was the eastern boundary of the rancho. It certainly would
seem not to embrace the eastern slope of the hills, as is now
claimed, but what it did embrace or where it did run is not
ascertainable from any of the documents which have been adduced,
and no parol testimony can aid this defect as regards the question
now under consideration. Parol testimony was very properly adduced
before the commissioners for the purpose of showing where equity
required that the line should be run in order to separate the
rancho from the public domain. But it cannot make that title
perfect which was not perfect before.
The Supreme Court of California, in
Banks v. Moreno,
[
Footnote 5] well observed:
"The precise point under discussion is whether or not the title
of Peralta, as exhibited by the plaintiff, was a perfect title
conveying the fee, and which invested him with absolute dominion
over a specific parcel of land without any further action on the
part of the United States, or whether, at the time of the cession
of California, something remained to be done by the government
which was necessary to invest Peralta with a complete legal title
to the specific tract."
"In every complete grant conveying a perfect title it is
essential that the thing granted be sufficiently described to
enable it to be identified. In grants of real estate it is not
Page 80 U. S. 494
always necessary to describe it by metes and bounds or by a
reference to actual or artificial monuments, nor by courses and
distances. If the tract granted have a well known name, and the
boundaries of the tract known by that name are notorious and well
defined, a grant of the tract by its name would doubtless convey
the title to the whole. In like manner, a grant describing the
tract by reference to the known occupation of the grantor or
another -- or to another instrument containing a sufficient
description of the premises -- would be sufficient. In short, any
description will suffice which identifies the land granted with
such certainty that the specific parcel intended to be granted can
be ascertained either by the calls of the instrument as applied to
the land or by the aid of the descriptive portions of the grant.
But it is equally certain that to constitute a complete and perfect
grant to a specific parcel of land, it must in some method appear
on the face of the instrument or by the aid of its descriptive
portions not only that a specific parcel was intended to be
granted, but it must also be so described that the particular tract
intended to be granted can be identified with reasonable certainty.
It would be a contradiction in terms to say that a specific tract
was granted if there was nothing in the grant by which it could be
ascertained with reasonable certainty what particular parcel was
intended to be conveyed."
We entirely concur in these views, and therefore hold that the
title of Peralta was an imperfect title, and necessarily required
confirmation in order to vest a full legal estate in private
parties.
But it is contended that the confirmation of the title enured to
the benefit of the parties really interested, both at law and in
equity, and not merely to the benefit of the confirmees. This is
undoubtedly true so far as the segregation of the lands from the
public domain and the extinguishment of the government title or
claim of title is concerned; but as it respects the legal estate,
the confirmation enures to the confirmees alone. The eighth and
ninth sections of the act require the claimant to show not only the
original title, but his own title
Page 80 U. S. 495
by deraignment therefrom. Having established these, the object
of the inquest is attained. It satisfactorily appears that the land
does not belong to the government, and the claimant appears to be
the person
prima facie entitled to the legal title. Hence
the thirteenth section goes on to declare that for all claims
finally confirmed, a patent shall issue to the claimant upon his
presenting to the general land office an authentic certificate of
such confirmation and a plat or survey of the said land duly
certified and approved by the Surveyor General of California, whose
duty it shall be to cause all private claims which shall be finally
confirmed to be accurately surveyed and to furnish plats of the
same.
This language is utterly irreconcilable with the hypothesis that
the legal estate devolves, upon the confirmation, to any other
parties than the confirmees. The patent is to be given to them, and
the legal title cannot be separated from the patent.
It is true that the fifteenth section of the act declares that
the decree of confirmation shall be conclusive between the United
States and the claimants only, and shall not affect the interests
of third persons. But this was intended to save the rights of third
persons not parties to the proceeding, who might have Spanish or
Mexican claims independent of or superior to that presented by the
claimant, or the equitable rights of other parties having rightful
claims under the title confirmed. The former class could still
present their claims without prejudice within the time limited by
the statute. The latter class, those equitably entitled to rights
in the land under the title confirmed, were not to be cut off.
Their equities were reserved. But they must seek them by a
proceeding appropriate to their nature and condition. The legal
title is vested in the confirmees, or will be when the requisite
conditions are performed. It is not in these equitable claimants.
They cannot maintain an action of ejectment against the confirmees
or those claiming under them, but must go into equity, where their
rights can be properly investigated with a due regard to the rights
of others. Had the daughters as well as the sons of Luis
Page 80 U. S. 496
Peralta gone before the commissioners, it is possible that they
would have participated in the legal advantages of the
confirmation. It may now be inequitable on the part of the sons to
withhold from them a due share of their father's estate. But other
rights may have grown up in the meantime, rights of
bona
fide purchasers and others ignorant of the equities existing
between the original parties, which it would be unjust to disturb.
These questions can be much better examined in an equitable
proceeding than they can be in this action, in which, indeed, they
are entirely inadmissible.
This view of the relative position of the parties is supported
by the weight of authority. The case of
Wilson v. Castro
[
Footnote 6] is directly in
point to show the form of proceeding proper for those who claim
against the confirmee. In that case, the claim was confirmed to the
widow, who really had no interest. The brother and sister of the
owner, as his heirs at law, brought a suit in equity against the
widow, and obtained a decree declaring her to be seized, as
trustee, for their use. In
Estrada v. Murphy, [
Footnote 7] the court says:
"A court of equity will control the legal title in his [the
confirmee's] hands so as to protect the just rights of others. But
in ejectment the legal title must prevail,"
and it decided the case accordingly against the plaintiff in
ejectment. In
Banks v. Moreno [
Footnote 8] the same conclusion was reached. In that case
as in this, the plaintiff claimed under the daughters of Luis
Peralta, the defendant under the sons, and it was held that the
action did not lie. The same view was taken by this Court in
Beard v. Federy [
Footnote
9] and
Townsent v. Greeley. [
Footnote 10] In the last case, the court uses this
language:
"The confirmation only enures to the benefit of the confirmee so
far as the legal title is concerned. It establishes the legal title
in him, but it does not determine the equitable relations between
him and third parties."
The case is somewhat analogous to that of patents granted upon a
preemption right for public land. Whilst the patent
Page 80 U. S. 497
in that case confers the legal title, and admits of no averment
to the contrary, the patentee may be subjected in equity to any
just claim of a third party, even to the extent of holding the
title for his sole use. The grounds of equitable jurisdiction in
such cases are stated in the opinion of this Court in the recent
case of
Johnson v. Towsley. [
Footnote 11]
The action of ejectment in this case cannot be maintained. The
judgment of the circuit court is
Affirmed.
[
Footnote 1]
United States v.
Peralta, 19 How. 343.
[
Footnote 2]
60 U. S. 19 How.
343.
[
Footnote 3]
24 Cal. 644.
[
Footnote 4]
39
id. 233.
[
Footnote 5]
39 Cal. 239, 240.
[
Footnote 6]
31 Cal. 420.
[
Footnote 7]
19
id. 272.
[
Footnote 8]
39
id. 233.
[
Footnote 9]
70 U. S. 3 Wall.
478.
[
Footnote 10]
72 U. S. 5 Wall.
326.
[
Footnote 11]
Supra, p.
80 U. S. 72.
