Mott v. Villa De Reyes

California Supreme Court Jul 1, 1873 No. No. 2,131Published

Before: Crockett

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the marginal orders issued by Governor Alvarado in 1839 were not intended to be, and did not constitute, a final adjudication of the land rights between the parties, and therefore did not annul the prior valid grant to Marquez and Reyes.

Issues

Whether the Governor of California had the authority to annul a land grant via an ex parte proceeding without notice to the affected parties.
Whether the marginal orders of December 1839 were intended as a final and conclusive adjudication of the competing land claims.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The general rule is, that when the acts of the officers of a foreign Government are brought in question in our Courts, the acts performed by them will be presumed to have been within the scope of their lawful authority”

Synopsis

Printing .Copy of Document in Brief.—If the attorney for one of the parties appends to his brief what he calls a certified copy of a document which is not in the record, the party which he represents cannot complain if the Court treat it as properly before it.

License by Mexican Authorities to Occupy Land.—A license to occupy land temporarily, called a provisional grant, granted by the Governor of California before the acquisition of California by the United States, conveyed no title, legal or equitable, to the land, and was revocable at pleasure.

Idem.—It was the practice of the Mexican Government to consider a long possession held under such provisional grant or license, as entitling the occupant to some sort of priority of right to purchase when the land came finally to be disposed of; but this priority did not rest on any legal obligation which the Government was under to such occupant.

Bight of Mexican Government to Annul a Grant of Land.—The question reserved, as to whether the Governor of California, when it was a part of Mexico, had the power, after a grant of land had been made to a party in due form of law, afterwards to annul and vacate it, on the ground that it was fraudulently obtained, and grant the land to another.

Bight of Mexican Grantee to Possession until Survey.—A party whose Mexican grant to a specific quantity of land within the exterior boundaries of a larger tract,, has been confirmed by the United States Di'strict Court, has a right to the possession of all the land within the exterior boundaries of the larger tract, until the Government of the United States shall segregate the part confirmed, by a final and approved survey.

Harmless Errors will not Reverse Judgment.—A judgment will not be reversed on account of rulings of the Court below which are not correct, if those rulings have worked no injury to the losing party, and could not have changed the result.

Acts of Officers of Foreign Governments.—The general rule is, that when the acts of the officers of a foreign Government are brought in ques- • tion in our Courts, the acts performed by them will be presumed to have been within the scope of their lawful authority, unless the contrary appears. Revocation of a Mexican Grant of Land.—Certain acts and orders of the Governor of California, when it was a part of Mexico, made in relation to a former grant of land, reviewed and discussed, and held not to be a revocation of such former grant, and not to amount to a grant, themselves, but to be only a license to occupy.

Grant of the Sobrante.—Two parties were contesting before the Governor of California, while it was a part of Mexico, the validity of their respective grants to the same tract of land, being grants which each had of a specific quantity within-the exterior limits of a larger quantity; in the meantime the Governor granted to one the sobrante within such exterior limits. J3eld, that this grant of the sobrante did not impair the rights of the other whose grant was the better one.

Opinion — Crockett

By the Court, Crockett, J.: The action is ejectment for a tract of land situate in the County of Los Angeles, and which is described in the complaint as the tract known as the “Bancho Santa Monica,” or “Boca de Santa Monica,” containing two square leagues, more or less. The plaintiffs claim under a Mexican grant to Francisco Sepulveda, which has been confirmed by a final decree of the United States District Court; whilst the defendants claim under a similar grant to Marquez and Beyes, which has also been confirmed by a final decree of the . same Court. But there has been no final approved survey in either case, and, consequently, no patent has issued in either.

The plaintiffs claim that the title of Sepulveda had its inception in a provisional grant, or concession, made to him in the year 1828 by Governor Echeandia, followed in the same year by an act of juridical measurement, by the Alcalde of Los Angeles, by which Sepulveda was let into possession, and his boundaries established, and which, it is claimed, included the premises in controversy.

On the other hand, the defendants claim that the title of Marquez and Beyes originated in a provisional concession, made in the year 1827, by the Ayuntamiento of the Pueblo of Los Angeles, to Alvarado and Machado, who immediately entered into possession; that Machado soon after abandoned the possession, and surrendered his right in the land to Alvarado, who continued in possession until his death, whereupon his sons succeeded to the possession and right of their father, and continued in possession until the year 1838, when they removed from the premises, and, with the consent of the Ayuntamiento, transferred their rights and surrendered their possession to Marquez and Beyes, who have ever since continued in possession; that in the year 1838 Malquez and Beyes petitioned the Governor for a [383]grant of the land, and that in July, 1839, after due proceedings had, the acting Governor, Jimeno, made a grant to them in due form, and in full property, in accordance with the colonization laws; that in August, 1839, the juridical possession was duly delivered to them by the proper officer, in accordance with the grant.

It is this title which has been finally confirmed by the United States District Court to Marquez and Reyes, or their successors in interest. It appears from the record, that soon after the grant was made to Marquez and Reyes, Sepulveda remonstrated against it, and took steps to vacate it, if practicable. On August 13th, 1839, he applied to the Alcalde of the proper district, requesting a copy of the original act of juridical measurement, by which he was placed in possession, in 1828, and if the document could not be found, that he take the deposition of Carillo, the former Alcalde, who had placed him in possession. In reply to this request, the Alcalde stated that the document could not be found in his office, and thereupon proceeded to take the testimony of Carillo, in writing, who testified in substance, that in the' year 1828, in accordance with a provisional concession by the Governor, he had placed Sepulveda in possession of the land. This testimony appears to have been taken ex parte, and without notice .to Marquez and Reyes. On presenting this testimony to Jimeno, the acting Governor, the latter, on October 31st, 1839, made upon it a marginal order, in the following words: “ Ordered, that this expediente be transmitted to the Prefect of the Second District, who will see that Francisco Sepulveda is not molested in the occupation which, since the year 1828, he has of the land known by the name of San Vicente and Santa Monica, and shall compel the said Sepulveda to transmit the exact map of the land in question." On the eighteenth of December of the same year Sepulveda presented the same document to Alvarado, tvho in the meantime had become Governor, and who there

Mott v. Villa De Reyes

AI Brief

Synopsis

Opinion — Crockett

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

Opinion

AI Brief