Ward v. Mulford
Before: Sanderson
Synopsis
Right to Land acquired prom Mexico or Spain.—The transfer of the sovereignty of California from Mexico to the United States did not affect the right of the inhabitants to their land which they had acquired from Mexico or Spain, before such transfer.
Titles acquired prom Mexico in California.—The United States, after the acquisition of California from Mexico, was bound to respect, not only perfect titles acquired by the inhabitants under Mexican domination, but also to respect such equitable claims as had their origin in the action of the Mexican Government, but were inchoate at the date of the succession, and to take such steps as were necessary to perfect the same.
Judgments Affirming Validity of Mexican Grants.—The judgment of the Board of Commissioners appointed by the United States to inquire into the validity of titles acquired from Mexico, or of the Courts of the United States on appeal, affirming a title derived from Mexico, when final, is conclusive upon the Government and upon all persons claiming under the Government by title subsequent.
Bight of California to Land within its Borders.—The State of California came into the Union, with her claim to the lands within her borders, such as she took by virtue of her admission under general grants to all the States previously made by the Federal Government, and such as might thereafter be granted from the same source, and such as she then acquired by virtue of her sovereignty, subordinate to the prior equities of grantees under the former sovereign, and bound by the action of the Federal Government in ascertaining and settling such equities.
Mexican Grant of Land Overflowed by Tides.—If the United States has confirmed the title to land in this State acquired from Mexico during Mexican rule, and which the State would otherwise have owned by virtue of its sovereignty, the State has no power to dispose of the same.
Land Held by State by Sovereignty.—The land which the State owns by virtue of its sovereignty is such as is covered and uncovered by the ebb and flow of the neap or ordinary tides.
Sale of Land Held by State by its Sovereignty.—The State can make no disposition of the lands it holds by virtue of its sovereignty prejudicial to the rights of the public to use them for navigation and fishery, but it may dispose of such lands for the purpose of promoting the interests of navigation or of reclaiming them from the sea, where it can be done without prejudice to the public right of navigation.
By the Court, Sanderson, J.: Ejectment to recover a parcel of land, part of the Rancho San Leandro, situated in Alameda County. It was tried without a jury and comes here upon the pleadings and a special finding of facts, unaccompanied by any evidence, except a map or diagram showing the lines of the Rancho San Leandro as surveyed by the Surveyor-General of the United States and confirmed by the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of California, the lines of a patent from the State of California, under which the defendants in part claim, the lines of the tract in dispute, the line of State segregation of swamp and overflowed lands, at that point, and the lines of [369]the spring and ordinary high tides of the Bay of San Francisco, by which the land is bounded on the west.
Upon the facts as found the Court gave the plaintiff judgment for seventeen eighteenths undivided. The defendants claim that the judgment should have been for them as to a part of the demanded premises, if not as to the whole.
The case is as follows: In 1842 the Rancho of San Leandro was granted in colonization by Juan B. Alvarado, then Governor of Upper California, to José Joaquin Estudillo. Said grant was presented to the Board of Commissioners appointed under the Act of Congress passed March 3d, 1851, and was confirmed by said Board on the 9th of January, 1855. Said grant was also confirmed by a decree of the District Court of the United States on appeal, which decree afterwards became final. In the decree of the Board, and also of the Court, the ranch was described as bounded on the west by the bay. (“Mare”) A survey was afterwards made by the Surveyor-General of the United States for the State of California and confirmed by the District Court of the United States. The land in suit fronts on the Bay of San Francisco and is within the lines of this survey. The plaintiffs hold the Estudillo title to seventeen eighteenths undivided. #
The defendants entered upon the land in 1852. At that time, (and still,) at and near the place where the land is situated there was a salt water pond, covering several hundred acres, including a part of the land in suit, into which the tide waters of the bay flowed at flood tide and returned at ebb tide, through a slough about two feet wide and fifteen or twenty rods long. On the west side of the slough there was a ridge of sand extending from the slough along the shore of the bay in a northerly direction and connecting with a road at the main land. At the slough this ridge rose into a knoll, or mound, three or four feet higher than the surrounding ground, which, inside of the ridge, was marsh. From the knoll to the main land the ridge was broken at places and crossed by small sloughs or gullies, caused by the action of the tides, but
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)