Berreyesa v. Schultz
Before: Field
Synopsis
Jose and Sisto Berreycsa, in 1843, petitioned the Governor of California for a grant of eight leagues of land, known as “Las Putas,” and in their petition represented that they were married, and had children, and also a considerable number of cattle and horses, and needed land on which to place them. On this petition, after a favorable report from his Secretary, the Governor ordered that a title issue to the petitioners for so much of'the land as they could settle. . No title issued upon this order; but for some unexplained reason the petitioners considered the concession which it directed as embracing four leagues of the tract solicited, and on the following day they presented a second petition, in which they stated that their families were very large, and included their parents, children, and brothers, and besides that there were more than one hundred uncivilized Indians in their neighborhood whom it was necessary to maintain, and for these reasons prayed a grant to themselves of the other four leagues. The report of the Secretary on this petition speaks of it as presented for the benefit of the petitioners, and of their parents, children, and brothers. On this petition a grant was issued, conceding to José and Sisto the entire tract, and declaring it to be their property, and imposing upon them the usual conditions. This grant recited that the grantees had petitioned “for their personal benefit, and that of their families, and that of their parents and brothers.” It being contended by the appellants, from these facts, that the parents and brothers of the petitioners as well as petitioners were beneficially interested in the grant: Meld,
First—That no valid argument in favor of the position of appellants could be drawn from the character of the first order of the Governor, because the grant which transferred the title was not issued upon it;
Second—That the second petition, and the report of the Secretary upon it, taken together, showed that the parents, children, and brothers, were referred to only as inducements for enlarging the bounty of the Government to the petitioners, and not as distinct additional beneficiaries ;
Third—-That the recital in the grant did not control the course of the title—that it only disclosed the inducements which operated upon the Governor to make the grant, and that the language of the operative clauses entirely excluded the idea that any other person than the two Berreyesas who petitioned were to become invested with the title ;
Fourth—That José and Sisto Berreyesa, the grantees, were invested by the grant with the full legal and beneficial title to the land, exempt from any trust in favor of the other members of the family.
The Mexican Regulations of 1828 required the applicant for lands, whether an empresario, head of family, or private person, to set forth in his petition to the Governor, “his name, country, profession, the number, description, religion, and other circumstances, of the families or persons with whom he wished to colonize,” and though these particulars constituted considerations with the authorities in whom the granting power was vested, they did not in any respect control the course of the title against the operative words of transfer in the grant.
Field, C. J. delivered the opinion of the Court Cope, J. and Norton, J. concurring.
These two actions turn upon the same question, and by stipulation of the parties have been presented and argued together. The first is a bill in equity to subject the property held by the defendant to certain trusts in his hands, and to compel the execution to the plaintiff of a deed of an undivided interest therein. The second is an action of ejectment, to which the defendant therein sets up as an equitable defense substantially the same matters which are urged for relief in the first action. A demurrer to the complaint in the first case, and to the answer in the other, was sustained, and judgments entered thereon.
[539]As appears from the documents annexed to the complaint, and constituting part thereof, in July, 1843, José and Sisto Berreyesa presented a petition to the Governor of California for a grant of land known hy the name of Las Putas, of about eight leagues in extent, referring in their petition to a previous provisional permission to occupy the same given by the Military Comandante of Sonoma. Upon this petition the Secretary gave a favorable report, and in October, 1843, the Governor made an order that a title issue to the petitioners for so much of the land as they could “ settle.” It does not appear that any title was ever issued upon this order, but for some reasons, which are not stated, the petitioners seemed to have considered the concession which it directed as embracing four leagues of the tract solicited; and on the following day they presented a second petition to the Governor, asking a grant of the other four leagues. Upon this petition the Secretary made a favorable report, and on the third of November, 1843, the Governor ceded to the petitioners the entire tract, and on the same day issued to them a formal grant of the premises.
The position of the appellants is that this grant was intended, not merely for the benefit of the grantees named therein, but also for the benefit in equal shares of all the members of the Berreyesa family—the fathers, brothers, and children of the grantees. In support of this position they rely upon three circumstances:
First, the implied refusal of the Governor to grant the entire tract of eight leagues solicited in the first petition of the two Berreyesas;
Second, the language of the second petition and the report of the Secretary made thereon; and
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)