Stevenson v. Bennett
Before: Sanderson
Synopsis
Imperfect Mexican Grants of Land.—If, at the date of the cession of California to the United States under the laws of Mexico, there remained anything to be done by the Mexican Government, in order to vest the grantee of land in California with title to the specific laud claimed by him, his title was imperfect, and it was necessary for him to present it to the Land Commissioners for approval within two years from the passage of the Act of March 3d, 1851, under the penalty of having the land become a part of the public domain if he failed to do so.
Idem as to Pueblo Lands.—Pueblo lands are not exempted from the operation of the above rules.
Right of Pueblo to Land. — A pueblo, when onoe legally established, became entitled to four square leagues of land, to be surveyed in the form of a square or quadrangle, and marked by boundaries which could be readily known by official authority.
When Right of Pueblo to Land Forfeited.—If, at the date of the cession of California to the United States, a pueblo existed which was entitled to four leagues of land, but the same had not been surveyed and had its boundaries marked by official authority, the title of the pueblo to the land was imperfect, and the same became a part of the public domain, unless an application was made to the Land Commissioners for its confirmation within two years from the . passage of the Act of Congress of March 3d, 1851.
By the Court, Sanderson, J.: For all the purposes of the present case we shall assume that Santa Cruz, at the date of the cession of California to the United States, was a Mexican pueblo, and, as such, entitled, under the Mexican law, to four square leagues of land; and that the American Alcalde, by whom the grants under which the plaintiff claims the lots in question were made, had all the powers with which Alcaldes were or could be vested under the Mexican law; and further, that he had the power to dispose of the lots in question, by sale as well as gift, and to non-residents as well as residents. This leaves for our consideration the single question, whether Santa Cruz forfeited her claim to four ’ square leagues of land by neglecting to present the same to the Board of Land Commissioners for confirmation, as provided in the Act of Congress of the 3d of March, 1851, to ascertain and settle private land claims in California.
By the eighth section of the Act of Congress of the 3d of [430]March., 1851, to ascertain and settle private land claims in this State, each and every person claiming lands by virtue of any title derived from the Spanish or Mexican Government is required to present the same to the Board of Land Commissioners for examination and confirmation if found valid.
By the thirteenth section it is provided that all lands, the claims to which have been finally rejected by the Commissioners, or which shall have been decided to be invalid by the District or Supreme Court of the United States, and all lands the claims to which shall not have been presented to the Commissioners within two years after the date of the Act, shall be deemed, held, and considered as a part of the public domain of the United States.
By the fourteenth section it is provided that the provisions of the Act shall not extend to any town lot, farm lot, or pasture lot held under a grant from any corporation or town to which lands may have been granted for the establishment of a town by the Spanish or Mexican Government, or the lawful authorities thereof, nor to any city, or town, or village lot, which city, town, or village existed on the 7th of July, 1846; but the claim for the same shall be presented- by the corporate authorities of the said town; or where the land on which the said city or town, or village, is situated was originally granted to an individual, the claim shall be presented by or in the name of such individual; and the fact of the existence of the said city, town, or village on the 7th of July, 1846, being duly proven, shall be prima facie evidence of a grant to such corporation, or to the individual under whom the said lotholders claim; and where any city, town, or village shall be in existence at the passage of the Act, the claim for the land embraced within the limits of the same may be made by the corporate authorities of the said city, town, or village.
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)