McGarrahan v. New Idria Mining Co.

California Supreme Court Jul 1, 1874 No. No. 4,091Published

Before: McKinstry

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the patent issued for the 'Panocho Grande' rancho was void because the underlying land claim had not been finally confirmed at the time of issuance, as an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court remained pending.

Issues

Whether a patent issued by the government is conclusive regarding matters of law versus recitals of fact.
Whether the District Court had the authority to set aside an order granting an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Whether the patent was valid if the land claim had not been finally confirmed at the time of issuance.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The patent, as we have seen, is not only the deed of the United States—it is evidence of the proceedings recited in it, and is a solemn record of the government, of its action and judgment, with respect to the title of the claimant.”

“The claim to the rancho “Panocho Grande” was not finally confirmed, therefore, when the alleged patent was issued, and the same is void.”

Synopsis

Patent fob Mexican Grant.—Both the officers of the government and the grantee, as well as those in privity with him, are hound by the recital of facts contained in the patent for a Mexican Grant.

Power to Issue Patents and Sell Public Land.—Neither the President nor any officer of the government has any power to dispose of the public domain, or to sign or cause the seal of the United States to be a,f- „ fixed to a patent, except such as is conferred by a statute of the United States.

When Patent may Issue.—A patent to a Mexican grant of land cannot be issued until after a final confirmation.

What Recitals in Patent are not Conclusive.—While the recitals of fact contained in a patent are binding on all concerned, an opinion of the executive officers as to matters of law, indicated either by the act of issuing the patent, or by the recitals contained therein, is not conclusive.

Patent Issued without Authority is Void.—A patent for a Mexican grant of land, issued while an appeal to the Supreme Court from the decree of the District Court confirming the same is pending, is void.

Vacating an Obdeb Granting an Appeal. —When an appeal has been granted by a District Court of the United States to the Supreme Court, the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court attaches, and the District Court has no power to vacate the order granting the appeal.

By the Court, McKinstry J.: For the purpose of this decision only, we shall consider the record in the volume in the General Land Office at Washington, kept for the recording of patents of the United States issued upon California confirmed Mexican, grants, as constituting the original patent.

The patent is evidence of the series of proceedings recited in it; and as the deed of the United States took effect by relation as of the date of the presentation of the petition for confirmation of the grant to the Board of Land Commissioners. (Leese v. Clark, 18 Cal. 535.) Indeed, it is only by virtue of this application of the doctrine of relation [335]that the plaintiff can hope to recover, since his deed from Gomez, the original grantee, only purports to convey “the right, title and interest ” of Gomez at the date of the conveyance, which preceded several years that of the alleged patent. (Gee v. Moore, 14 Cal. 472; Kimball v. Semple, 25 Cal. 440; Morrison v. Wilson, 30 Cal. 344.) The patent, as we have seen, is not only the deed of the United States—it is evidence of the proceedings recited in it, and is a solemn record of the government, of its action and judgment, with respect to the title of the claimant. As such, it imports absolute verity. (Teschemacher v. Thompson, 18 Cal. 11.) It follows that both the officers of the government and the grantee, as well as those in privity with him, are bound by the recital of facts contained in the patent.

Neither the President, however, nor any officer has other power to dispose of the public domain, or to sign, or cause the seal of the Land Office to be affixed to patents, than such as is conferred by statutes of the United States. (Parker v. Duff, 47 Cal. 554.)

Under the Act of Congress of 1851, “To ascertain and settle private land claims in California,” a patent can only issue after the final confirmation of a Mexican grant. While therefore the recitals of fact are binding on all concerned, an opinion of the executive officers in respect to matters of law, as indicated either by the ultimate act of issuing the patent or by recitals inserted in that instrument, is not— and from the nature of the powers and duties of such officers—cannot be conclusive. (Foscalina v. Doyle, 47 Cal. 437.)

It appears from the alleged patent that on the 25th of August, 1862, an order was made in the District Court allowing an appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States in the case The United States v. Gomez; and that at the December Term, 1862, the District Court made an order purporting to set aside the order of the 25th August.

McGarrahan v. New Idria Mining Co.

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief