Sacramento Valley Reclamation Co. v. Cook
Before: Sharpstein
Synopsis
Swamp and Overflowed Land—Patent—Conflicting Patents—Jurisdiction of Land Department—Relation — Ejectment — Evidence. The plaintiff, in an action of ejectment, deraigned title under a United States patent dated June 8/1874. Erom the approved list upon which the same was issued it appeared that the land had been claimed by the State under Section 4 of the Act of Congress of July 23, I860, as having been segregated by the State as swamp lands prior to that date, and that approved amended maps showing such segregation had been returned by the United States Surveyor General. The defendant gave in evidence a patent of the United States of the same land to his predecessor in title of date August 5, 1869, and offered evidence tending to prove that the land, at the date of the Swamp Land Act, was not swamp or overflowed land; hut the evidence was rejected. It was admitted by the plaintiff that the land was surveyed by the United States surveyors and returned and represented on the township plat approved by the United States Surveyor General, December 3, 1853, as high lands.
Held: The State, by the selection and segregation of said lands as swamp and overflowed prior to July 23, 1866, acquired the right under the Act of that date to have the character of said lands determined in the mode prescribed by that Act, and any one who purchased said lands from the United States pending the proceedings for the determination of the ques- ' tion of right of the State to said lands took subject to that determination, which, if in favor of the State, entitled it to a patent which would relate back to the twenty-eighth day of September, 1850, the date of the passage of the Act granting swamp and overflowed lands to the State. The Secretary of the Interior having determined the character of said lands, evidence tending to impeach that determination was clearly inadmissible in this action and properly ruled out by the Court.
Sharpstein, J.: The respondent claims that the demanded premises were swamp and overflowed lands; and that as such they were granted to the State by the Act of Congress of the twenty-eighth of September, 1850. That said lands were selected and segregated by the State prior to the passage of the Act of July 23, 1866, and that after the passage of said last mentioned Act the character of áaid lands was determined by testimony taken by the United States Surveyor General, who decided that said lands were swamp and overflowed lands, and that said decision was approved by the Commissioner of the General Land Office of the United States, and that in accordance with said determination and decision, said lands were, on the twelfth of December, 1873, listed to the State. On June 3, 1874, a patent of said lands was issued by the United States to the State, which, on the eighteenth of [343]August, 1874, issued a patent of the same lands to the respondent.
The appellant claims title to the same lands under a patent of the United States issued to William C. Belcher on the fifth of August, 1869, whose title, through mesne conveyance, vested in appellant on the fourteenth of December, 1870.
It is sufficiently obvious that unless the title to said lands had passed out of the United States prior to the issuance of said patent to Belcher, the judgment in this action was erroneous; so that the only question which we now have to consider is, whether the title to said lands had vested in the State prior to the date of the patent to Belcher.
It is as well settled as anything can be by the Courts, that the donation of swamp and overflowed lands by the United States to the States in which such lands were situated at the date of the passage of the Act of September 28, 1850, “was a grant in presentí, by which the title to those lands passed at once to the States in which they lay, except as to States admitted to the Union after its passage.” (French v. Fyan, 93 U. S. 169.)
In order, however, to avoid confusion, it was necessary to provide a method of determining what lands were “swamp and overflowed lands.” And so it was provided in the second section of the Swamp Land Act, “that it shall be the duty of the Secretary of the Interior, as soon as practicable after the passage of this Act, to make out an accurate list and plats of the land described as aforesaid, and transmit the same to the Governor of the State, and at the request of the Governor, cause a patent to be issued to the State therefor, and on that patent the fee simple to said lands shall vest in the State, subject to the disposal of the Legislature thereof.” And in French v. Fyan, supra, the Court says: “We are of the opinion that this section devolved upon the Secretary, as the head of the department which administered the affairs of the public lands, the duty, and conferred on him the power, of determining what lands were of the description granted by that Act, and made his office the tribunal whose decision on that subject was to be controlling.”
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)