Maxwell Land-Grant Case

121 U.S. 325, 7 S. Ct. 1015, 30 L. Ed. 949, 1887 U.S. LEXIS 2055
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedApril 18, 1887
Docket974
StatusPublished
Cited by212 cases

This text of 121 U.S. 325 (Maxwell Land-Grant Case) 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
Maxwell Land-Grant Case, 121 U.S. 325, 7 S. Ct. 1015, 30 L. Ed. 949, 1887 U.S. LEXIS 2055 (1887).

Opinion

Mr: Justice Miller

delivered the opinion of the court.

The case was an appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Colorado.

The decree from which this appeal is • taken dismissed a bill brought in that court by the United States against the Maxwell Land-Grant Company, the Denver and Rio Grande Railway Company, the Pueblo and Arkansas Valley Railroad Company; and the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fé Railroad Company. It was brought by the Attorney General of the United States, and its purpose was to have a decree setting aside and declaring void a patent from the- United States granting to Charles Beaubién and-Guadalupe Miranda, their heirs and assigns, a tract of land described in a very extensive, survey, which is made a part of the patent. It is stated in the brief of the Assistant Attorney General in this court that .the patent conveys 1,114,164^5- acres of land, lying partly in the territory of New Mexico and partly in the state of Colorado. This patent is dated May 19, LS'Í'9, and seems to be regular on its face in every particular. ■ The bill to set this patent aside was filed in the Colorado Circuit Court on August 25, 1882, which was a little over three years after the patent was issued. By virtue of certain mesne conveyances, and other transactions not necessary to be recited here, it may be stated that the title conveyed by the patent to._Beaubien and Miranda enured immediately upon its being issued to the benefit of the Maxwell Land-Grant Company, a corporation which has the beneficial interest in the grant, so far as appears in this record, and the contest is mainly if not exclusively between the United States and that, company*

*358 The original bill filed in the ease assailed the grant mainly upon the ground that the patent was issued by the Executive Department of the government upon the false representations of the defendant, the Maxwell Land-Grant Company, and those whose estate the company has in, the land, and of whose fraudulent actings and doings in the premises the company had notice at the time it acquired the title. This bill recites the original grant of January 10, 1841, by the Republic of Mexico, which it declares was in due form of law, made to Beaubien and Miranda, citizens of said republic, and it gives the description of the land and its boundaries which is here the subject of controversy. The bill also declares that said grant and the proceedings had in regard thereto were in due form of law and in accordance with the usages and customs of that country, as more' fully appeared by reference to the grant and act of possession, copies of which wej-e annexed thereto, and that it was duly accepted by the grantees, who immediately thereupon entered into possession of the premises, and that they, and those holding under them, have ever since been in the quiet, peaceable and exclusive possession thereof.

The bill then declares that the Surveyor General of the territory of New Mexico, under the act of 1854, made a report in favor of this grant; that on June 21, ,1860, the Congress of the.United States confirmed and ratified it as recommended; and that the patent was • afterwards issued upon a survey made by order of the government under the instructions of the Surveyor General of New Mexico, approved by the Comihissioner of the General Land. Office, which patent is made an exhibit to the bill. This original' bill then goes on to charge that the survey on which this patent- was issued was falsely and fraudulently made, and that the Maxwell Land-Grant Company, and certain parties who made this survey under a contract with the government, conspired to cheat and defraud the government of the United States by including a larger amount of land than was intended to be embraced by the original grant of the Republic of Mexico; and it especially charged that about 265,000 acres, to wit. *359 all the lands lying and being in the county of Las Animas, in the state of Colorado, were fraudulently included in this survey, and tvere of the value of two millions of dollars. The main purpose of the bill, and the only specific prayer for relief, is, that the survey may be declared void so far as it includes lands within the state of Colorado, though it concludes by praying for general relief.

It is quite obvious that the ground of relief set out in this bill is that the excess of 265,000 acres lying Ayithin the present state of Colorado was included within the survey by fraud, and that this fraud should be remedied. • No attempt is made in the bill to assail the remainder of the grant or to point out any reason why the patent should not be good for all the lands in New Mexico. After answers had been filed to this bill, and a large amount of testimony taken, there was filed, on the 5th day of December, 1883, an amended bill, which it is now insisted is substituted for the original bill. In this amended bill, for the first time, it is set up, as a ground for setting aside the patent and survey on Avhich it was made, and having them declared void, that under the laws of Mexico at the time it was made, no such grant .could exceed eleven square leagues to each individual, and that by virtue of those laws, therefore, the grant to Beaubien and Miranda could not exceed tAventy-two leagues, the equivalent of which is 97,424 acres. The bill then sets out Avith something more of particularity the errors supposed to exist in the survey on which the patent from the United States was based, and the frauds connected with-that survey by which the officers of the government were imposed upon and induced to issue the patent. Much of the testimony, and perhaps most of it, was taken before this amendment was filed, and it is strongly, insisted in the brief of the appellees, that the reason for filing it Avas that the testimony taken in regard to the frauds, and in regard to the mistake of the officer of the government in running the boundaries of the grant, had failed to establish such fraud and mistake.

Answers and replications were filed in due time, and a large amount of testimony taken, Avhich, Afith the pleadings, *360 documents and proceedings of the court, and other public bodies, constitute a printed record of nearly nine hundred pages.

The questions which are presented by this record and which demand our consideration may be divided into three:

' First. Do the colonization laws of Mexico, in force at the time the grant was made to Beaubien and Miranda, namely, the decree of the Mexican Congress of August 18, 1824, and the general rules and regulations for the colonization of the territories of the Republic of Mexico of - November 21, 1828, render this grant void, notwithstanding its confirmation by the Congress of the United States ?

Second. If the grant be valid, is there such a mistake in the survey on which the patent of the United States was issued as justifies the court in setting aside both patent and survey ?

Third. Was there such actual fraud in procuring this survey to be made and the patent to be issued upon it as requires that the patent be set aside and annulled ?

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

Related

Gillmor v. Blue Ledge Corp.
2009 UT App 230 (Court of Appeals of Utah, 2009)
Wilson v. Workman
577 F.3d 1284 (Tenth Circuit, 2009)
United States v. Rebelo
646 F. Supp. 2d 682 (D. New Jersey, 2009)
Amgen, Inc. v. F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd.
581 F. Supp. 2d 160 (D. Massachusetts, 2008)
Ty Inc. v. Softbelly's, Inc.
517 F.3d 494 (Seventh Circuit, 2008)
Gorbach v. Reno
219 F.3d 1087 (Ninth Circuit, 2000)
United States v. Breyer
Third Circuit, 1994
Disner v. Westinghouse Electric Corporation
726 F.2d 1106 (Sixth Circuit, 1984)
Heflin v. Stiles
663 S.W.2d 131 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1983)
Herman & MacLean v. Huddleston
459 U.S. 375 (Supreme Court, 1983)
Jacob Sanchez v. J. T. Taylor, Jr.
377 F.2d 733 (Tenth Circuit, 1967)
Becton-Dickinson & Co. v. Robert P. Scherer Corp.
106 F. Supp. 665 (E.D. Michigan, 1952)
Martinez v. Rivera
196 F.2d 192 (Tenth Circuit, 1952)
Thompson v. Teel
1950 OK 335 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1950)
State Ex Rel. McCullen v. Sproles
28 So. 2d 218 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1946)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
121 U.S. 325, 7 S. Ct. 1015, 30 L. Ed. 949, 1887 U.S. LEXIS 2055, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maxwell-land-grant-case-scotus-1887.