Semple v. Hagar
Before: Rhodes
Synopsis
Complaint for ‘Belief on ground of FR4jUD..-^In an action brought to vacate a patent for laud on .the ground that its issuance was procured from the Government 0 by false suggestions, fraudulent concealments, and by misrepresentations, the acts of fraud and misrepresentation on which the general charge is based must be specified in the complaint, or it will not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.
Judicial Notice of Proceedings to obtain Patent.—The Supreme Court will take judicial notice of the fact, that the claimant of land under a Mexican or Spanish grant, presented his petition to the Board of Land Commissioners for the confirmation of his title, and that the same was confirmed by said Board, or the District or Supreme Court of the United States, before the patent was issued.
Facts found before Confirmation of Grant.—The Board of Land Commissioners, or the United States Court, in passing upon and confirming a Mexican or Spanish grant of land, must necessarily find, not only t^at the alleged grantee was in fact the grantee of the Mexican or Spanish Government, hut also that he was competent to take the grant.
A Decree confirming a Grant of Land.—A decree of the Board of Land Commissioners or of a Court of the United States, confirming a Mexican or Spanish grant of land, cannot be attacked in another action, on .the ground that the grantee was not competent to take the grant, by reason of having received a grant of more than eleven square leagues of land before he obtained the grant confirmed.
Suit to vacate a Patent for Land.—A patent issued by the United States for a confirmed Mexican or Spanish grant will not be vacated by a State Court because the grantee had received a donation, of more than eleven square leagues of land from Mexico or Spain before he received the grant confirmed.
Judgments of Federal Courts.—State Courts cannot set aside or indirectly review the judgments of the Federal Courts made in jnatters -of which the Federal Courts have jurisdiction,
By the Court, Rhodes, J. The appellant denominates this action “a bill in equity, brought to repeal and vacate a patent issued by the United States, to Thomas 0. Larkin and John S. Missroon for the Jimeno grant,” or, as he states in another portion of his brief, and which amounts to the same thing in substance, a bill “to quiet the title to the Colus grant by vacating the Jimeno grant.”
He states in his complaint that the Colus grant was granted to John Bidwell; that Bidwell conveyed the grant to the appellant; that in 1855 the title was finally confirmed to him; that the survey of the grant was approved by the United States District Court in January, 1860; that he has sold divers lots and tracts of the grant, and that he now is in possession of the unsold part of the grant. He further states that prior to November, 1844, certain Governors of the Californias granted to Manuel Jimeno Casarin two ranchos—called “ Sal si Puedes ” and “ Santa Paula y Saticoy ”—containing in the aggregate twelve Spanish leagues of land; that “ the said Manuel Jimeno Casarin, well knowing that he had actually received, as donations from the Mexican nation, twelve square leagues of land within the Californias, and, well knowing that [166]it was in violation of the laws of Mexico for any one individual to own or hold more than eléven square leagues of land, yet contriving to deceive and defraud the Mexican nation, did fraudulently and unlawfully, on the 4th of November, 1844 petition for, and Mqnuel Micheltorena, then Governor of the Californias, did fraudulently and unlawfully and upon false suggestions grant to the said Manuel Jimeno Casarin another rancho, commonly called ‘Jimeno Rancho,’ containing eleven leagues- of land,” etc.; that Manuel Jimeno Casarin then-held the two ranchos formerly granted to Mm; that he transferred the Jimeno grant to Larkin and Missroon; that “ some proceedings in some suit or controversy” were had between them and the United States; that in 1868 a patent founded on the grant was issued to them for the Jimeno Rancho, and that they procured the patent to be issued “ by false suggestions, fraudulent concealments and misrepresentations.” He further states that the Jimeno grant overlaps a portion of the Colus grant—that it is a cloud upon his title in the Colus grant, and that Hagar, one of the respondents, claims that portion of the Jimeno -grant that overlaps the Colus' grant.
The respondents demurred to the complaint on several grounds, two of which were that the Court had no jurisdiction of the subject of the action, and that the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action,- and the demurrers were sustained, and the plaintiff failing to amend, judgment was rendered dismissing the action.-
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)