Hays v. Steiger
Before: Belcher
Synopsis
Public Lands — Mexican Grant—Act to Quiet Land Titles—Bona Pide Purchaser —Pre-emption—Trust.—A bona fide purchaser of land lying within the exterior boundaries of a Mexican grant, and excluded therefrom upon final survey by the United States, has a preferred right to purchase the same from the United States under the act of July 26, 1866, and cannot he charged as trustee of the patent procured by him in favor of a prior pre-emption claimant of such land, or of the heirs of such claimant.
Id. —Pleading. —Pleadings are to be construed most strongly against the pleader; and where nothing to the contrary is shown in a complaint by the heirs of a pre-emption claimant to enforce a trust against a patentee who was a bona fide purchaser from a Mexican grantor, it will be considered that the land was situated within the exterior boundaries of the grant.
Id. —Decisions of Land Department — Pleading. —The courts cannot review the action of the land department of the United States, so far as thoir decisions are based upon questions of fact. They can only review and correct the errors of lawqgommitted by the land officers in their rulings upon the facts found by them to be true; and in order to justify such review, the facts on which the errors were based must be fully stated in the pleading.
Id. — Secretary of Interior. — The Secretary of the Interior is at the head of the land department, and is clothed with supervisory power over all the rulings and acts of the commissioner.
Id. — Homestead — Forfeiture — Pleading.—When it is claimed that the land department erred in deciding that a homestead claim was not forfeited by conveyance of part of the premises, the complaint must show that the fact that such conveyance was made was proved, and found to be true by the land department. If the conveyance was made before the homestead claim was filed, it is not forbidden by law. If it is not alleged how much was conveyed, or for what purpose, it will be considered against the pleader that the conveyance was for a purpose permitted by section 2288 of the Revised Statutes of the United States.
Belcher, C. C. The plaintiffs are the heirs at law of one John Mann, who died intestate on the twenty-fifth day of July, 1872. Mann was a qualified pre-emptor, and in 1863 settled upon a tract of unsurveyed land in the county of Sonoma. He erected improvements on the land, and continued to reside thereon with his family until the time of his death. The township in which the land was situated was afterward surveyed, and on the 16th of August, 1880, an approved plat thereof was filed [557]in the United States land-office at San Francisco. On the 27th of October, 1880, one of the plaintiffs, for and on behalf of the heirs of Mann, filed with the register and receiver of the land-office a declaratory statement, claiming the right to pre-empt, for the use and benefit of the said heirs, 160 acres of land, which was described as lots 4 and 5 of section 22, and lots 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 22 of section 23, in township 6 north, etc.
In 1870 the defendant entered upon a part of the land claimed by Mann, and thereafter resided thereon. On the 8th of November, 1880, he filed in the land-office an application for a homestead on land described as lots 1, 3, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, and 14 of section 23, in township 6 north, etc. The land applied for by both parties, to the extent of 110.81 acres, was the same. The defendant claimed that, under the provisions of section 7 of the act of Congress of July 23, 1866, entitled "An act to quiet land titles in California,” he had a right to purchase all the land applied for by him, for the reason that the same was within the exterior boundaries of a Mexican grant, known as Agua Caliente, but was excluded therefrom upon final survey by the United States, and he was a bona fide purchaser thereof for a valuable consideration from parties who purchased from the original grantee of the grant.
The contest beween the parties as to which had the right to enter the land was tried before the register and receiver of the land-office, and the decision was in favor of the defendant. From that decision an appeal was taken to the commissioner of the general land-office, and he reversed the decision of the register and receiver, and entered one in favor of the plaintiffs. An appeal was then taken to the Secretary of the Interior, and that officer reversed the decision of the commissioner, and affirmed that of the register and receiver. Subsequently, a United States patent was regularly issued to the defendant.
[558]
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)