Rich v. Maples

California Supreme Court Jul 15, 1867Published

Before: Rhodes

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The Act of 1858, which sought to allow settlers ousted from land by holders of Mexican land grants to recover possession and rents if the land was later excluded from the grant, is unconstitutional because it attempts to divest vested property rights.

Issues

Whether the Act of 1858 is constitutional in authorizing a settler to recover possession and rents from a Mexican land grant holder after the land is excluded from the final survey.
Whether a holder of a Mexican land grant has a vested right to the possession and rents of the entire tract within the exterior boundaries prior to the final survey.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“the Legislature of the State has no authority to empower him to recover the possession from any one, and that the Act in question, in so far as it purports to enable him to recover the possession, is unconstitutional and void.”

“Our conclusion is that the Act is unconstitutional.”

Synopsis

Possession op Mexican Grant.—The holder of a grant of land made by Mexico, of a specific quantity, to be located within the exterior limits of a larger tract, acquires a vested interest in the larger tract which entitles him to the possession of the same, and the rents and profits thereof, until the specific quantity granted is segregated by the Government.

Act declared Unconstitutional.—The Act of April 26th, 1858, which provides that a person ousted from the possession of land, in an action at law, by a person claiming title under a foreign grant, which shall thereafter be so located as not to include the land recovered, may recover back the land and the rents and profits thereof, is unconstitutional if applied to land where the grant is of a specific quantity, to be selected within the exterior limits of a larger tract, and the land recovered is within such exterior limits.

Bents and Profits.—The person entitled to the possession of land is also entitled to the rents and profits, and the Legislature has no power to enable another person, who has no title, to recover from him those rents and profits.

Possession of Public Land.—A person in possession of public land under a judgment giving him possession, is presumed to be rightfully in possession until some one shows a right to the possession derived from the United States.

By the Court, Rhodes, J.: In 1860 Maria T. P. de Castro, one of the defendants in this action, commenced an action against the present plaintiff and others, to recover the, possession of portions of the Rancho Pastoría de los Borregas, of which she claimed to be the owner under a grant from the Mexican CoAernment, and in 1862 she recovered judgment, and in 1864 was put in possession, and she and her tenants, the other defendants to this action, have held the possession since that time. The grant was for two leagues Avithin the exterior lines of the tract described in the grant, containing a larger quantity of land. The title of Maria T. P. de Castro was confirmed, and after she was put in possession under her judgment against the present plaintiff and others, the lines of her grant were surveyed and finally established under the authority of the United States, and the grant as surveyed, excluded the lands in controversy in this suit. The plaintiff sues to recover the possession of the lands from which he was ejected under the judgment, and the rents and profits of the lands from the time of the survey of the rancho, and certain damages for alleged injuries groAving out of the action. He seeks this remedy under the provisions of the Act of 1858, entitled “An Act for the better protection of settlers on public lands in this State, and to secure the rights of parties in certain cases.” (Stats. 1858, p. 345.)

The Act provides that a person ousted from the .possession of land in an action at law, by a person claiming title under [108]a foreign grant, which shall thereafter he rejected, or so located as not to include the land recovered, may have his action against the plaintiff in the former action, and .the person in possession of the land, to recover hack the possession of the land together with the rents and profits thereof from the time he was so ousted, and the costs and damages sustained by reason of the former action of ejectment. The ruling of the Court in sustaining the demurrer to the complaint, raises the question of the constitutionality of the Act.

The grant in this case, it was admitted, was in the usual form of Mexican grants in California, and was held by the plaintiff in the former action, and she did not claim title through any other source. While she was the holder of that title, and prior to the survey and segregation of the two leagues called for by the grant, she was entitled to the possession of the entire tract within the exterior limits designated in the grant. This was so held in Ferris v. Coover, 10 Cal. 589, and affirmed in many subsequent cases, among which are Cornwall v. Culver, 16 Cal. 423; Riley v. Heisch, 18 Cal. 198; Mahoney v. Van Winkle, 21 Cal. 552; Carpentier v. Thurston, 24 Cal. 268. Grants of this character confer a vested interest in the specific quantity of land designated, and though such title does not become attached to any particular parcel of the larger tract, until a survey of the specific quantity is made by the officers of the General Government, the grantee, his heirs and assigns are entitled to the possession of the whole tract out of which the quantity granted is to be taken, as against those entering without title, until such time as the specific quantity is segregated. This right is not a mere naked barren right of possession; but as a necessary incident to the right of possession, the holder of the grant is entitled to the use and enjoyment, and the rents and profits of the land.

Rich v. Maples

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief