A confirmation of a claim to land in California under a grant
from the former Mexican government, obtained under the Act of
Congress of March 3, 1851, is limited by the extent of the claim
made, and the decree of confirmation cannot be used to maintain the
title to other land embraced within the boundaries of the
grant.
Error to the Supreme Court of the State of California, the
action being ejectment for lands in that state, on which judgment
was rendered for the defendant in a district court of the state and
affirmed by the Supreme Court.
Page 88 U. S. 388
MR. JUSTICE FIELD stated the case and delivered the opinion of
the Court as follows:
This is an action for the possession of certain real property
situated in the County of Marin in the State of California. The
premises are embraced within the boundaries of a grant made by the
former Mexican government to one Ramon Mesa in March, 1844. Through
Mesa the plaintiff derives his interest, and as evidence of the
recognition and confirmation of Mesa's title produces a decree of
the District Court of the United States for California confirming,
under the Act of Congress of March 3, 1851, a claim of one Vasques
to a portion of the land covered by the same grant, and he insists
that as the confirmation of that claim involved a recognition of
the validity of the grant, this decree may be invoked for the
maintenance of his title to the remaining portion of the
premises.
It is undoubtedly true, as contended by counsel, that the
tribunals of the United States, in acting upon grants of land in
California of the former Mexican government under the Act of 1851,
were concerned only with the validity of the grants as they cam
from that government, and were not interested in any derivative
titles from the grantees further than to see that the parties
before them were
bona fide claimants under the grants. And
it is also true that the decrees of confirmation and the patents
which followed inured to the benefit of all persons deriving their
interests from the confirmees. But in these positions there is
nothing which gives countenance to the pretensions of the plaintiff
in this case. Every confirmation is limited by the extent of the
claim made, and it does not follow that because the tract embraced
within the description of the grant is more extended than the land
claimed, that the confirmation would have been made to any greater
amount than that claimed if it had been prayed. Good reasons may
have existed why the remaining portion could not be confirmed and
why its confirmation was not therefore asked. The remaining portion
may have consisted of lands not subject to grant under
Page 88 U. S. 389
the colonization laws of Mexico; or it may have been previously
granted to other parties by the Mexican government; or it may have
been subsequently acquired by that government previous to the
cession, or by our government subsequently. Whatever the reasons,
the confirmation covered nothing and protected nothing beyond the
claim asserted.
After the full and elaborate consideration which has been
heretofore given in this Court, in the numerous cases before it, to
Mexican grants in California, we do not feel called upon to say
more as to the effect of a confirmation of claims under them. Every
conceivable point respecting these grants, their validity, their
extent, and the operation of decrees confirming claims to land
under them has been frequently examined, and the law upon these
subjects has been repeated even to wearisomeness.
Judgment affirmed.