De Toro v. Robinson (1891) · DecisionDepot

De Toro v. Robinson

Name: California Superior Court Tentative Rulings
Creator: DecisionDepot
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

California Supreme Court Sep 25, 1891 No. No. 14180Published

Before: Haven

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the plaintiffs failed to state a cause of action because they did not present their land claim to the commission as required by the Act of 1851, causing the land to revert to the public domain, and because the complaint failed to sufficiently allege that the defendants' patented land included the plaintiffs' property.

Issues

Whether the complaint sufficiently alleged that the defendants' patented land included the plaintiffs' property.
Whether the failure to present a land claim to the commission under the Act of 1851 extinguished the plaintiffs' rights to the land.
Whether the plaintiffs had standing to challenge alleged fraud committed against the United States in the survey of the land.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The fraud, if perpetrated as charged, was against the United States alone, and consisted in fraudulently extending the boundaries of Los Coyotes over a portion of the public domain.”

Synopsis

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

De Haven, J. This action is brought to obtain a decree that the plaintiffs are the owners in equity of a [373]certain named undivided interest in 50,444 acres of land within the tract called Los Coyotes, and "that the defendants hold the legal title to such undivided interest in trust for them. The defendants answered, and thereafter moved for a judgment upon the pleadings, which motion was granted, and judgment thereupon entered in favor of the defendants. The plaintiffs appeal.

A motion for judgment on the pleadings, such as was made in this case, is proper when the complaint does not state a cause of action. (King v. Montgomery, 50 Cal. 115: Kelley v. Kriess, 68 Cal. 210.) This motion, like a demurrer for the same cause, admits for its purposes all the facts alleged in the complaint, and the question therefore to be considered on this appeal is, whether the complaint states a cause of action in favor of plaintiffs. The allegations of the complaint, so far as necessary to be stated, are, in substance, that the plaintiffs are the successors in interest of one Juan José Nieto; that upon July 27, 1833, José Figueroa, then governor of California, made a decree declaring said Nieto to be the owner of the places called Los Coyotes, Los Alamitos, and Palo Alto, in the county of Los Angeles, and directing juridical possession and title thereto to be given him; that these places were contiguous, and contained within their exterior boundaries more than seventeen leagues.

It is also alleged that the governor thereafter, on May-22, 1834, made a grant of Los Coyotes to said Nieto, containing ten leagues. The complaint further alleges that one Abel Stearns acquired the right and title of said Nieto to the Los Alamitos, and obtained from the land commission a confirmation of an alleged grant of the same to said Nieto for six leagues. It is also alleged that said Nieto conveyed Los Coyotes to one Leandry, as containing ten leagues, August 31, 1839; and in 1852, Andreas Pico and Mrs. Ocampo, successors of said Leandry, presented their petition before the land commission for the confirmation of Los Coyotes, containing ten leagues, and the same was confirmed. It is also alleged that the patent was issued to them for this [374]rancho as containing eleven leagues, and one to Abel Stearns for Los Alamitos, as containing six leagues, but in fact containing an excess of 1,398 acres.

Related research

2. But if the complaint could be construed as contended for by appellants, still, it fails to state a cause of action, as it does not show that plaintiffs are the equitable owners of any portion of the lands in controversy. Whatever equities or rights the plaintiffs have arise out of the decree of Governor Figueroa dated July 27, 1833, declaring Juan José Nieto the owner of the places called Los Coyotes, Los Alamitos, and Palo Alto, and ordering juridical possession and title to be given him for the same; and as the complaint alleges that Nieto in bis lifetime parted with his ownership of all the lands except Palo Alto, it follows that plaintiffs could only succeed to his ownership of that place. But it is expressly averred, as we construe the above-quoted allegation of the complaint, that the grant to Nieto of Palo Alto, if the above referred to decree of Figueroa be so considered, was never presented for confirmation to the land commission appointed under the act of March 3, 1851, to ascertain and settle private land claims in this state; and it is declared by section 13 of that act that “all lands the claims to which shall not have been presented to the said commissioners within two years after the date of this act shall be deemed, held, and considered as part of [376]the public domain of the United States.” It has been held that this act, requiring claims to be presented to the commission therein provided for, applies to every claim “ by virtue of any right or title derived from the Spanish or Mexican government,” whether founded upon a perfect grant or on an “imperfect and inchoate claim, where the initiation of the proceedings necessary to secure a legal right and title to the property had been commenced, but not completed.” (Botiller v. Dominguez, 130 U. S. 238.) And the court in that case say: “There can be no doubt of the proposition that no title to land in California dependent upon Spanish or Mexican grants can he of any validity, which has not been submitted to and confirmed by the board provided for that purpose in the act of 1851; or if rejected by that board, confirmed by the district or supreme court of the United States.”

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief