1. The Act of March 3, 1853, 10 Stat. 244, granted for school
purposes to California the public lands within sections 16 and 36
in each congressional township in that state, except so much of
them whereon an actual settlement had been made before they were
surveyed, and the settler claimed the right of preemption within
three months after the return of the plats of the surveys to the
local land office. If he failed to make good his claim, the title
to the land embraced by his settlement vested in the state as of
the date of the completion of the surveys.
2. In this case, the title of the state to the demanded
premises, being part of a school section, having become absolute
May 19, 1866, a mining company could, under the act of July 26,
1886 (14 Stat. 253), acquire no right to them.
ERROR to the Supreme Court of the State of California. The facts
are stated in the opinion of the could.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE delivered the opinion of the Court.
This was an action of ejectment, brought by Bugbey, the
defendant in error, against the Natoma Water and Mining Company,
the plaintiff in error, to recover possession of a part of the
south half of section 16, township 10 north, of range 8 east, Mount
Diablo base and meridian, in the State of California. He claimed
title by grant from the state, and the company under the Act of
Congress of March 3, 1853, "to provide for the survey of public
lands in California, the granting of preemption rights therein, and
for other purposes," 10 Stat. 244, and the Act of July 29, 1866,
"granting the right of way to ditch and canal owners over the
public lands, and for other purposes," 14 Stat. 251.
The decision of the Supreme Court of California having been
against the title set up by the company, this writ of error was
brought. The facts affecting the federal question in the case are
as follows:
In 1851, the company commenced the construction of a canal upon
the unoccupied and unsurveyed public lands of the United
Page 96 U. S. 166
States, for the purposes of supplying water to miners and
others. This canal was completed, at large expense, in April, 1853,
and the premises in controversy are included within its limits. By
the Act of March 3, 1853, 10 Stat. 244, Congress provided for the
survey of the public lands of California, and granted sections 16
and 36 to the state, for school purposes. By sec. 7 of this act, it
was provided,
"that where any settlement, by the erection of a dwelling house,
or the cultivation of any portion of the land, shall be made on the
sixteenth and thirty sixth sections, before the same shall be
surveyed, . . . other land shall be selected by the proper
authorities of the state, in lieu thereof, agreeably to the
provisions of the act of Congress approved May 20, 1826, . . ."
4 Stat. 179.
The survey of the lands in controversy was completed May 19,
1866, and the plats deposited in the United States land office for
the district, June 16, 1866. At that time, Bugbey was an actual
settler upon the legal subdivision of the section 16 in which the
premises are situated, and had thereon a dwelling house, and
agricultural and other improvements. He made no claim under the
preemption laws of the United States. Other persons were also in
possession of other portions of the section. The act of 1853
required (sec. 6) that,
"where unsurveyed lands are claimed by preemption, the usual
notice of such claim shall be filed within three months after the
return of the plats of the surveys to the land offices."
On the 28th of September, 1866, the register of the United
States land office certified to the state land office that no claim
had been filed to this section 16, except the preemption of one
Hancock, which was afterwards abandoned.
Sec. 9 of the Act of July 26, 1866, 14 Stat. 253, is as
follows:
"That whenever, by priority of possession, rights to the use of
water for mining, agricultural, manufacturing, or other purposes,
have vested and accrued, and the same are recognized and
acknowledged by the local customs, laws, and the decisions of the
courts, the possessors and owners of such vested rights shall be
maintained and protected in the same; and the right of way for the
construction of ditches and canals, for the purposes aforesaid, is
hereby acknowledged and confirmed. . . . "
Page 96 U. S. 167
The company has brought itself within the provisions of this
section, if at the time of the passage of the act the United States
held title to the lands.
On the 22d of April, 1867, Bugbey purchased the portion of the
section on which the premises in controversy are situated from the
State of California, and took a patent. The company does not in any
manner connect itself with this title, or with that of any other
occupant of the section previous to the survey.
In
Sherman v. Buick, 93 U. S. 209, it
was decided that the State of California took no title to sections
16 and 36, under the act of 1853, as against an actual settler
before the survey, claiming the benefit of the preemption laws, who
perfected his claim by a patent from the United States. In such a
case, the state must look for its indemnity to the provisions of
sec. 7 of the act. As against all the world, except the preemption
settler, the title of the United States passed to the state upon
the completion of the surveys; and if the settler failed to assert
his claim, or to make it good, the rights of the state became
absolute. The language of the Court is, p.
93 U. S.
214:
"These things [settlement and improvement under the law] being
found to exist when the survey ascertained their location on a
school section, the claim of the state to that particular piece of
land was at an end, and it being shown in the proper mode to the
proper officer of the United States, the right of the state to the
land was gone, and in lieu of it she had acquired the right to
select other land, agreeably to the act of 1826."
In that case, the controversy was between the settler, who had
perfected his title from the United States, and a purchaser from
the state. Here the company does not claim under the settler's
title, but seeks by means of it to defeat that of the state, and
thus leave the land in a condition to be operated upon by the Act
of July 26. The settler, however, was under no obligation to assert
his claim, and he having abandoned it, the title of the state
became absolute as of May 19, 1866, when the surveys were
completed. The case stands, therefore, as if at that date the
United States had parted with all interest in and control over the
property. As the Act of July 26 was not passed until
Page 96 U. S. 168
after that time, it follows that it could not operate upon this
land in favor of the company.
This disposes of the only federal question in the record.
Judgment affirmed.