Chipley v. Farris
Before: Rhodes
Synopsis
Issuing a Patent to a Deceased Person.—If the patentee to whom a patent is made, under the Act of March 3d, 1851, to settle private land claims in California, dies before the patent is issued, the title to the lands therein designated becomes vested in the heirs, devisees; or assignees of the deceased patentee, the same as if the patent had issued during his life.
Patent for Mexican Grant.—A patent of a Mexican grant of land is not issued without authority of law, because the Surveyor General of California transmits to the General Land Office the plat and survey of the land certified and approved by him, instead of having the transmission made by the confirmee.
What Gives Perfect Title to Inchoate Mexican Grant. — The claimant of a Mexican grant, whose title is not perfect, and for that reason requires confirmation, does not acquire a perfect title except by means of a patent, or a survey confirmed in accordance with the Act of June 14th, 1860.
Patent Cannot be Attacked Collaterally.—A patent for a Mexican grant of land is a record which binds both the Government and the claimant, and those deriving title through him, and cannot be attacked by either party, except by direct proceedings instituted for that purpose.
Evidence to Show Patent Void.—neither the claimant of a Mexican grant, n'or those claiming title through him, can introduce evidence, in an action brought by them to recover possession of the grant, or a portion thereof, to show that the patent issued therefor was void.
Delivery and Acceptance of Patent.—It is not necessary that a patent, issued for a Mexican grant, under the Act of 1851, for the settlement of private land claims in California, should be accepted by or delivered to the claimant or patentee. The patent takes effect when issued.
Approved Survey of Mexican Grant.—If the patent purports to convey the land described in the approved survey of a Mexican grant, and the decree of confirmation comprises á greater area than the approved survey, the claimant has no title except to the land described in the approved survey.
Confirmation and Approved Survey.—If the decree of confirmation of a Mexican grant does not accord in its description of the land with the approved survey, and the patent conveys the land as described in the approved survey, the claimant’s title is confined to the land as described in the approved survey, even if the decree of confirmation is inserted in the patent.
Idem.—If the decree of confirmation covers land not included in the approved survey, and not conveyed by the patent, the claimant has no title to the surplus which is not conveyed by the patent.
Idem.—The boundaries mentioned in'the approved survey must prevail over those mentioned in the decree of confirmation.
By the Court, Rhodes, J.: The claim of A. M. Lugo to the Eancho de San Antonio was finally confirmed, and the description of the land confirmed, as given in the decree of confirmation, accords substantially with that of the juridical possession. In the patent issued to the confirmee, the lines of the rancho on the western side, as described in the field notes, and the plat, do not coincide with those mentioned in the decree of confirmation, but exclude a portion of the land included in the latter. The land in controversy is a portion of the land thus ex-[537]eluded. The plaintiffs claim title under a son of A. M. Lugo, who had received a conveyance from his father after the confirmation, but before the issuing of the patent. The patent was issued after the death of A. M. Lugo, and was delivered to a person who was the owner of a specific parcel of the rancho; but it does not appear that any of the parties under whom the plaintiffs claim made an application for the issuing of the patent. The plaintiffs rely mainly upon the decree of confirmation, and attack the patent on several grounds.
They contend that it is void because it was issued after the death of the patentee. It was held in Waterman v. Smith, 13 Cal. 419, that the Act of Congress of May 20th; 1836, which provided “ that in all cases where patents for public lands have been or may hereafter be issued in pursuance of any law of the United States, to a person who had died, or who shall hereafter die, before the date of such patent, the title to the land designated therein shall inure to, and become vested in, the heirs, devisees, or assignees of such deceased patentee, as if the patent had issued to the deceased person during life ” was applicable to a patent issued under the Act of March 3d, 1851—the Act to ascertain and settle the private land claims in the State of California. The decision on that point has remained unquestioned up to the present time, and we have entire confidence in its correctness.
It is also contended that the patent is void, because the proceedings in respect to the survey were had under the Act of June 14th, 1860. The survey in the field was made prior to the passage of that Act, and there is nothing on the face of the patent, nor in any portion of the record before us, which goes to show that the proceedings were not properly had under that Act.
[538]
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)