Dehon v. Bernal

Supreme Court

Dehon v. Bernal

70 U.S. 774, 18 L. Ed. 146, 3 Wall. 774, 1865 U.S. LEXIS 756

DecidedFebruary 13, 1866

StatusPublished

This text of 70 U.S. 774 (Dehon v. Bernal) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Dehon v. Bernal, 70 U.S. 774, 18 L. Ed. 146, 3 Wall. 774, 1865 U.S. LEXIS 756 (1866).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice MILLED

delivered the opinion of thé court.

1. When the United States and the claimant to whom a Mexican grant has been confirmed are both satisfied with its location, we think that any other person who seeks to contest such a location must show some title, legal or equitable, to some part of the land covered by the survey, before the *776 court will disturb it at his instance. And though the District Court may, upon slight showing, permit a person to intervene to protect any interest he may have, we are of opinion that, on the hearing, he must show some title, legal or equitable, to the land in dispute, before the court is justified in disturbing the survey in his interest. In the present case, the court did modify the survey, so as to exclude all the land to which the appellant showed such title.

2. The survey conforms as nearly to the decree confirming the grant as it can well be made to do... It is true that the location as made by the surveyor places the northern boundary of the lot some distance south of the arroyo; but, as all the prescribed elements of location cannot be complied with, we do not see how it can be located more in conformity with the decree than it is.

And as the appellant has not shown that he is prejudiced by the survey as it is confirmed by the District Court, its decree is

Ajttrmed with costs.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Mr. Justice MILLED

delivered the opinion of thé court.

1. When the United States and the claimant to whom a Mexican grant has been confirmed are both satisfied with its location, we think that any other person who seeks to contest such a location must show some title, legal or equitable, to some part of the land covered by the survey, before the *776 court will disturb it at his instance. And though the District Court may, upon slight showing, permit a person to intervene to protect any interest he may have, we are of opinion that, on the hearing, he must show some title, legal or equitable, to the land in dispute, before the court is justified in disturbing the survey in his interest. In the present case, the court did modify the survey, so as to exclude all the land to which the appellant showed such title.

2. The survey conforms as nearly to the decree confirming the grant as it can well be made to do... It is true that the location as made by the surveyor places the northern boundary of the lot some distance south of the arroyo; but, as all the prescribed elements of location cannot be complied with, we do not see how it can be located more in conformity with the decree than it is.

And as the appellant has not shown that he is prejudiced by the survey as it is confirmed by the District Court, its decree is

Ajttrmed with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

70 U.S. 774, 18 L. Ed. 146, 3 Wall. 774, 1865 U.S. LEXIS 756, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dehon-v-bernal-scotus-1866.