United States v. Vallejo

66 U.S. 541, 17 L. Ed. 232, 1 Black 541, 1861 U.S. LEXIS 512
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedMarch 24, 1862
StatusPublished
Cited by28 cases

This text of 66 U.S. 541 (United States v. Vallejo) 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
United States v. Vallejo, 66 U.S. 541, 17 L. Ed. 232, 1 Black 541, 1861 U.S. LEXIS 512 (1862).

Opinions

Mr. Justice NELSON.

This is an appeal from a decree of the District' Court of the United States for the northern district of California.

The claim of Vallejo and his assigns covers a tract of land known by the name of Suscol, in the county of Solano, California, bounded on the north by lands named Tulucay and Suisun, on the east and south by the Straits of Carquines, Ysla del a Yegua, and, the Estero de Napa, without any limitation as to quantity, and embraces from ninety to one hundred thousand acres, including Mare Island, on which the United States have established, their navy-yard on the Pacific, and the city of Benicia, situate on the bay of San Francisco. Two grants of the tract to Vallejo were given in evidence — one a colonization grant, dated. 15th March, 1848, and the other a grant founded on a sale for the consideration of $5,000, dated 19th June, 1844. Both grants purport to be signed by Micheltorena, Governor, and Francisco Arce, Secretary ad interim.

From a letter of Micbeltdrena to Vallejo, 16th March, 1848, one day after the date of the colonization grant, in which he states that he transmits to him a title for the place named Suscol, and that he accepts the offer to pay $5,000 for the same, it is reasonable to conclude that the colonization grant was intended to be founded on the contract of sale; and doubting, perhaps, that the grant could not be maintained in this form, the second was executed without any reference to the colonization laws.

A paper purporting to he a decree for the formal approval of these two grants by the Departmental Assembly, dated 26th [550]*550September, 1845, and signed by Pió Pico, and José Ma. Covarrubias, Secretary, is in the record, but there is no evidence of its genuineness. It seems to have been given up as spurious.

The evidence of possession and cultivation is slight. Indeed, considering the magnitude of the tract granted, it is entitled .to very little weight. As the grants were dated 1848 and 1844, and the country taken possession of by this Government in 1846, there could be but two or three years’ possession or-occupation under them at the time of our taking possession. The evidence that Vallejo occupied and cultivated the tract previous to the grants, which, of itself, is slight and unsatisfactory, is still further weakened by the fact, which is shown, that the ranch had been occupied by the claimant as a military commandant with soldiers and Government property.

The witnesses, who speak of the possession as early as 1841, might' very readily have confounded this possession for the uses of the Government with a possession for Vallejo himself. Ve can give very.little weight to a possession so limited as to duration and in extent, when offered in support of a grant of ninety or one hundred thousand acres of land. If the grant cannot be maintained by its own force and effect, this possession will scarcely uphold it. Coming then to the grants, we may as well lay aside the first one, the colonization grant,- at -once, as entirely defective within the law of 1824 and the regulations. of 1828. The only ;document in evidence is the naked grant itself. It would be a waste of time, after the numerous cases in this court- on these titles, to go over the objections to this source of title;

The next is-the grant.founded on the sale, and .which is the only one entitled to consideration. -

The main objection to this grant is the want of power in the Governor to make it; and this raises the question, whether or not the Governor possessed any power to'make grants of .the public lands independently of that conferred by the act of 1824 and the regulations of 1828.

The Mexican Congress, after the country had thrown off the-government'of Spain', and had erected a new and an independ* [551]*551ent government in its place, representing the sovereign power of the nation, passed the law of 1824 providing for the grant and colonization of the public lands.

The second section provides that the lands of the nation, which are not the property of any individual, corporation, or town, are the subject of this law, and may be colonized. Section third: For this purpose the Congress of the States shall, with the least delay, enact laws and regulations for colonizing within their respective boundaries, conforming in all respects to the constitutive act, the general constitution, and the rules established in this law.

The act then prohibits the colonization of any lands within twenty leagues bordering on any foreign nation, or within ten, leagues of the sea-coast, without the consent of the supreme government; and further, that in the distribution of the lands preference is to be given to Mexican citizens; that no person shall be allowed to obtain a grant of more than eleven leagues; and that no person who may obtain a grant under the law shall retain it if he resides out of the limits of the republic.

The sixteenth section then provides, that the Executive shall proceed, in conformity with the principles established in this law, to the colonization of the Territories of the republic.

The Supreme Executive Government, acting under the above sixteenth section, on the 21st November, 1828, established regulations for the granting and colonization of the public lands in the Territories, and, among others, in California.

The first section declares, “ that the political chiefs (the Governors) of the Territories are hereby authorized te> grant vacant lands within their respective Territories,” “to either Mexicans or foreigners who may petition for them, with the object of cultivation or settlement. Said grants shall be made according to the laws of the general Congress of 18th August, 1824, and under their qualifications.”

Then follows a series of preliminary proceedings, specially enjoined for the purpose of ascertaining the fitness of the petitioner to receive a grant, and also of ascertaining if the land asked for-may be granted without prejudice to the public or individuals; and it is declared-, m view of these, the -Governor [552]*552will grant or not the land; but if the grant is made, it must be in strict conformity with the laws upon the subject, and especially with reference to the law of .1824; and the grants made to individuals or families shall not be definitively valid without the previous consent of the Departmental Assembly.

Section eighth. The grant petitioned for having been definitively. made, a patent, signed by the Governor, shall be issued, which shall serve as a title to the party, expressing therein, that the grant has been made in strict accordance with the provisions of the law, by virtue of which possession shall be taken; and section nine, of all petitions and grants a record shall be made in a book kept for that purpose, with the plats of the land granted.

There are many other stringent provisions and conditions imposed wrhich it is not important to refer to specially; it is' sufficient to say, that the system thus established by the sovereign power of the nation for the grant and distribution of the public lands, exhibits a deliberation and care over the subject that is in striking contrast with the system of granting the public lands under our Government, and furnishes the highest evidence of the extreme interest the Mexican Government took in guarding against impositions and frauds, by or upon the political chiefs in the execution of the law.

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

Related

Amy Talboy v. Martha Dukes
Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2023
Rivers v. Roadway Express, Inc.
511 U.S. 298 (Supreme Court, 1994)
State Ex Rel. State Game Commission v. Red River Valley Co.
182 P.2d 421 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1945)
Capital of Puerto Rico v. Casino Español
56 P.R. 758 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 1940)
Gobierno de la Capital v. Casino Español
56 P.R. Dec. 790 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 1940)
People v. Dimas
18 P.R. 1019 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 1912)
Pueblo v. Dimas
18 P.R. Dec. 1061 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 1912)
Hayt v. United States
38 Ct. Cl. 455 (Court of Claims, 1903)
Whitney v. United States
181 U.S. 104 (Supreme Court, 1901)
United States v. Ortiz
176 U.S. 422 (Supreme Court, 1900)
Chavez v. United States
175 U.S. 552 (Supreme Court, 1900)
Hays v. United States
175 U.S. 248 (Supreme Court, 1899)
Ely's Administrator v. United States
171 U.S. 220 (Supreme Court, 1898)
Hayes v. United States
170 U.S. 637 (Supreme Court, 1898)
Los Angeles Farming & Milling Co. v. Thompson
49 P. 714 (California Supreme Court, 1897)
Muse v. Arlington Hotel Co.
68 F. 637 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Arkansas, 1895)
Owen v. Presidio Mining Co.
61 F. 6 (Fifth Circuit, 1893)
Grant v. Jaramillo
6 N.M. 313 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1892)
Atherton v. Fowler
96 U.S. 513 (Supreme Court, 1878)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
66 U.S. 541, 17 L. Ed. 232, 1 Black 541, 1861 U.S. LEXIS 512, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-vallejo-scotus-1862.