Brown v. O'Connor

By the Courts

Hastings, Ch. J. This was an action originally instituted before the court of First Instance of San Fran[420]cisco for the recovery of possession of a 50 vara lot at the Mission Dolores. It appears from the evidence that on the 12th day of October, 1842, Francisco Sanchez, then Alcalde of the district of San Francisco, on the petition of plaintiff, granted the premises in controversy ; that, plaintiff enclosed the same by a fence and erected a house thereon; that afterwards, the fence having decayed, the premises were more permanently enclosed by one Leidesdorff, deceased, by and with the consent of Brown. That the premises have generally been denominated “ Brown’s Lot,” The defendant claims under a lease executed in the year 1849 by José Prudencia Santillan,the then Padre of the Mission Dolores, and also by virtue of his settlement and occupancy, setting up that the premises were the property of the government of the United States, and that he cannot be legally ousted but by authority and action of the general government, claiming that. Brown never complied with the conditions imposed inhis grant, and that the premises were vacant and unoccupied at the time he took possession. It appears from the testimony of San-tillan that, at the time he executed the lease, he did not know that the premises had been granted, nor does it appear that the priest had any authority to lease the premises. This case is similar to Reynolds v. West decided in this court. (Ante, p. 322.) In that case we held that an Alcalde, before the acquisition of California, had authority to make grants and concessions of land not exceeding 50 varas/ and from the authorities cited in that case, (Strother v. Lucas, 12 Pet. 410, 437, and United States v. Arredondo et al., 6 Pet. 691,) we there held that until the contrary be shown, it is to be presumed that an officer, under a foreign government, in the course of his ordinary or accustomed duties, acts within the sphere of his duties. Applying the principles decided in the case of Reynolds v. West to the facts of the present case, it inevitably follows that the plaintiff ought to recover as against the defendant. Although the evidence in some things is contradictory, yet there was testimony, first, of a grant made to plaintiff; second, of possession taken ; and third, of the erection of a fence and a house on the premises. The defendant claims under naked occupancy ; there [421]