Valentine v. Sloss

California Supreme Court Jun 26, 1894 No. No. 15432Published

Before: Beatty

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a land patent issued by the United States government, which explicitly incorporates a survey by reference, is conclusive as to the boundaries of the granted land, and that the statute of limitations for an action to recover such land does not begin to run until the patent is issued.

Issues

Whether a land patent's boundaries are controlled by the courses and distances in the survey incorporated therein, notwithstanding conflicting claims regarding natural boundaries.
Whether the United States land office had authority to issue a patent for tide lands included in the survey.
Whether the district court had jurisdiction to approve a prior survey under the Act of June 14, 1860.
Whether the statute of limitations for an ejectment action based on a land grant begins to run before the issuance of the patent.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“As the patent conveyed by express reference the land described in the survey, the admission leaves no room for this argument.”

“This question has been so often determined, and the decisions are so uniform, that it can no longer be deemed open for discussion.”

“it has been uniformly held that the statute does not begin to run until the issuance of the patent.”

Synopsis

Mexican Grant—Tide Lands—Don clusiveness of Patent—Control of Decree.—Where a decree of confirmation under a Mexican grant followed the language of the grant bounding the land upon the bay of San Francisco, and the survey and the patent extended beyond the line of extraordinary high tide, and to ordinary high tide, so as to include tide lands claimed by the defendants under patents from the state, the survey and patent will control as to the land granted by the United States, and entitle a plaintiff claiming under that patent issued to the confirmees of the grant to recover the tide lands in controversy.

Id.—Evidence—Delivery of Juridical Possession—Contradiction of Patent.—Evidence of delivery of juridical possession is not admissible to control the effect of the patent of the United States confirming a Mexican grant.

Id.—Void Approval of Survey.—The district court had no jurisdiction to affirm a survey of a Mexican grant which was approved by the surveyor general before the passage of the act of June 14, 1860.

Id.—Statute of Limitations.—The statute of limitations does not begin to run against the confirmee of a Mexican grant until the patent has been issued.

Opinion

The Court. This is an action brought to recover possession of land under section 738 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Plaintiff claims title derived from the heirs of Juan Read, who received a grant from the Mexican government. His claim was presented to the board of land commissioners, and by them confirmed. Patent issued to the confirmees February 25, 3885, and this action was commenced February 21, 1890.

This appeal is from an order denying defendants’ motion for a new trial made upon a statement of the case. The statement contains the following:

“ It appeared from other documentary evidence introduced that all of the right, title, and interest of John Read, Hilaria Read, and Ynez Read in the land described in the complaint herein had. vested in the plaintiff before the commencement of this action.

“ It was admitted by all of the parties to the action that all of the land described in the complaint in this action lies, and is included, within the boundaries by courses and distances as given in said patent, and as surveyed and delineated on the plat attached thereto.

“ It was admitted, on behalf of the plaintiff, that all of the land described in the complaint lies between the line of extroardinary high tide and the line of the ordinary high tide of the waters of the bay of San Francisco, as the same existed on the second day of October, 1834, and on the seventh day of July, 1846.”

[218]It appears from the recitals contained in the patent that the claim was confirmed by the board of land commissioners June 13,1854. In the decree of the commission the land of which confirmation was made was described as follows:

“ Commencing from the solar which faces west, at a point at the slope and foot of the hills which lie in that direction and on the edge of the forest of redwoods called Corte de Madera del Presidio, and running from thence in a northwardly direction four thousand five hundred varas to an arroyo called Holon, where is another forest of redwoods called Corte de Madera de San Pablo; thence by the waters of said arroyo and the bay of San Francisco ten thousand varas to the Point Tiburón, said point serving as a mark and limit; thence running along the borders of said bay, and continuing in a westerly direction along the shore of the bay formed by Point Caballos and Point Tiburón, four thousand seven hundred varas to the mouth of the Canada and the point of the ‘ Sausal/ which is near the estero lying east of the house on said premises, which was occupied by said Juan Read in November, 1835, and thence continuing the measurement, from east to west, along the east line eight hundred varas to the place of beginning, containing one square league of land, be the same more or less.”

Valentine v. Sloss

AI Brief

Synopsis

Opinion

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

Concurrence — Beatty

AI Brief