People ex rel. Attorney-General v. Folsom
Before: Murray
Synopsis
The Federal Government has not only the right of eminent domain, hat the fee, and the prime and uncontrolled right of disposition of the territory, all of Which are attributes of sovereignty.
The Territory of California passed to the United States, subject to the power of the Federal Government to establish a Territorial Government, or erect the ■same into a State. It was garrisoned and held by United States troops and governed by United States officers. Every acre of land not the property of Mexican citizens passed to it, and the power of the Federal Government to acquire territory, either by purchase or treaty, is undisputed.
Sovereignty can never be in abeyance, and until there was some local government organized, either by the people of the territory, or some other competent authority, the United States, upon the doctrine of necessity, succeeded to, and represented the Government of Mexico, so far as the same could be exercised within the purview of the Constitution.
The United States, after the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, did not become vested with authority to prosecute any claim for a forfeiture or escheat that had accrued in California to the Mexican Government.
An alien may hold real estate against every one, and even against the Government, until office found.
Laws regulating the admission of foreigners and aliens, and placing them under peculiar disabilities, and especially those relative to escheats, are political in their character.
The policy of the Government of the United States has been to encourage the immigration of foreigners, and to this extent a system of pre-emption has been adopted in all the Territories and new States, in which there is no discrimination between foreigners and native citizens.
Foreigners can hold property in all the Territories, and may inherit, in the absence of legislation upon this subject.
By the civil law, as well as the common law, the King cannot take upon himself the possession of an estate said to have escheated, until the fact is judicially ascertained by a proceeding in the nature of an inquest of office.
The Mexican law of escheats did not remain in force in California until the ratification of the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.
This law was abrogated by the conquest of the country by the Americans, as far as citizens of the United States and aliens were affected.
Twelve days before the ratification of the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, Leidesdorff, a naturalized citizen of Mexico, died, seized of certain lands in San Francisco, and Anna M. Sparks, his mother and heir, through whom the defendant claims title, was not at the time of his death a citizen of the United States or of Mexico, hut was a subject of Denmark, and never resided in Mexico or the United States. Held, that in order that the United States should take any interest in the land, it was necessary that the forfeiture should have been ascertained, either by the United'States or by Mexico.
Murray, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court. Heydenfeldt, J., concurred.
This case has excited more public attention than any that, has heretofore been presented to this Court, both on account of the amount and the principles involved.
Its discussion has evinced a research and ability highly complimentary to the counsel engaged, without which it would have been almost impossible to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion.
The case stands thus: On the 18th of May 1848, Leidesdorff, a naturalized citizen of Mexico, died seized of the property in dispute, and that Anna Maria Sparks, his mother and heir, through whom defendant’s claim, was not at the time of his death a citizen of Mexico or the United States, but was, and is now, a subject of Denmark, and has never resided in the United States or Mexico. It will be observed that Leidesdorff’s death occurred twelve days before the ratification of the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.
The questions presenting themselves upon this state of facts are, first—was Anna Maria Sparks competent, under the laws, as they then existed, to take the property of Leidesdorff by inheritance ? And second—if she was not, has the State of California such an interest in the estate as can be maintained in this proceeding ?
The first proposition, so far as it relates to the question of the disabilities of aliens, and their right to succeed by inheritance to real estate in Mexico, involves the examination of many doubtful and con. dieting authorities, more valuable ,to the student and the professional antiquarian, as relics of a by-gone jurisprudence, with which the present day is but little acquainted, than necessary to this decision, which must tarn on a different point.
The disability of aliens to take by inheritance is a familiar principle of the common and the civil law. This disability at common law is said to arise from the fact, that an interest its. the soil requires a permanent aEegiaucc to the King or the Lord of the Manor, which would probably [376]be inconsistent with that which the alien owes to his natural liege. Bacon’s Abridg. Title A.
In the quaint language of Lord Coke, it is said, that an alien cannot inherit, because, among other reasons, “the sinews of war and the armament of peace would be taken and enjoyed by strangers born,” and because he has no heritable blood. Calvin's case, 4 Coke and 2 Black., 249. The rule of the civil law was founded on like reasons. This policy is said to have been adopted by the Romans from the Athenians, who excluded foreigners from a participation in their civil rights.
More from California Supreme Court
- People v. Wende (1979)
- People v. Watson (1956)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996)
- People v. Kelly (2006)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)
- People v. Lewis (2021)
- In Re Estrada (1965)
- Denham v. Superior Court (1970)
- People v. Marsden (1970)