United States v. Walkinshaw

28 F. Cas. 388
CourtDistrict Court, N.D. California
DecidedJuly 1, 1863
StatusPublished

This text of 28 F. Cas. 388 (United States v. Walkinshaw) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Walkinshaw, 28 F. Cas. 388 (N.D. Cal. 1863).

Opinion

HOFFMAN, District Judge.

The land confirmed in this case is a tract called “Posol-mi,” which, by order of Governor Michel-torena, had been excepted out of a larger tract previously granted to Francisco Estrada. It appears from the expediente that, on the 10th June, 1843, Yfiigo, an emancipated Indian, of Santa Clara, presented a petition to the governor, setting forth that there had Keen granted to him the land known as “Posita de las Animas,” or “Ojo de Caballo,” according to the map which he presented, and that he had been in possession of the same since 1839. He further alleged that his papers had been delivered to one. Ignacia Alvisu, by whom they had been retained; that, after repeatedly demanding his papers from Alvisu, without success, he had applied a second time to the government, which again gave him documents to establish his ownership to the land; that Alvisu took these documents under pretense of acquainting himself with their contents, but had never returned them; that, in the meantime, Estrada had obtained a grant for the “Pastoría,” without excepting his (YfiigiTs) land. He, therefore, prayed that reports might be required from the mission of Santa Clara, where some documents must exist relative to his title and that of Estrada. On the first of October following Yfiigo renewed his petition, claiming the land in dispute, “of which he had been in peaceable possession,” as he averred, repeating his charges against Alvisu, and complaining that Estrada was attempting to dispossess him. On this petition, the minister of Santa Clara made a voluminous report, in which the statements of Yfiigo are sustained and his rights recognized. On the 14th of February the governor made a decree as follows: “Let the title be issued to Yfiigo, recognizing, in absolute and. perpetual ownership, his imprescriptible right to the occupation of himself and predecessors, from the ‘aguage,’ or running water, contiguous to his house, as far as the land where his house is situated and his small sowing ground worked.” On the following day, February 15th, 1844, the governor made the usual decree of concession, declaring the native Indian of Santa Clara owner of the tract of land named “Posolmi,” “bounded by the sausal on the south, by the estero on the north, by his house, and by the spring (ojo de agua) named ‘Posita de las Animas.’ ” On the same day the formal title was issued. It describes the land as bounded “by the Posita de las Animas, and including that spring—the other boundaries being as far as [389]*389where there is now built a house of wood— and from this point to the estero towards the north, and to the sausal on the south. Colin-dante con la Posita de las Animas quedando este inclusiveal serreno: tiendo los demaS linderos hasta donde aclualmente fabricada una casa de madera y desde este punta hasta el estero por la parte del norte y hasta el sausal por la parte del sur.” The fourth condition describes the land as that which is designated on the respective diseño. On the same day the governor made an endorsement upon the expediente of Estrada as follows: “By decree of the departmental government of the Californias, it was this day resolved that to the Indian of Santa Clara named ‘Yñigo’ should be extended the concession for the land which he occupies, the boundaries being from his house as far as the first spring named ‘Las Animas,’ inclusive, and from the sausal to the estero, and for due proof thereof it is noted on this title.” The rights of Yñigo having thus been recognized and defined, the governor, on the 23d of February made an order on his second petition of October 1, 1843, as follows: “As there has been issued by this government, to the interested party a title to the land in dispute, giving to him the part which is believed to be just, or, more properly speaking, declaring his prior rights, as appears by decrees on the expediente of Yñigo and of Estrada, let these originals be returned to the party,” etc.

From these documents it is apparent that the rights of Yñigo to a certain tract were recognized as prior and superior to those of Estrada, and that they were intended to be secured to him in the most formal and solemn manner. But it is also plain that his pretensions were not admitted to their full extent. This is evident from the last order of the governor, on the petition of October 1, 1843. in which he states that there has already been issued to the party interested a title for the land in dispute, “giving him that part which is believed to be just.” But it is still more manifest from an inspection of the diseño. On this document the boundaries as delineated by Yñigo embraced a tract extending a considerable distance to the west of the posita, and across the road to the south of the sausal. On the margin is a note stating the dimensions of the tract to be one and a quarter leagues in length, by three-quarters of a league in breadth. Within the exterior limits thus asked for by Yñigo, lines are drawn, evidently intended to indicate the tract actually conceded. These lines are on the two sides drawn north and south, passing by the posita and the house, respectively, while the northern boundary is evidently the estero, and the southern a line drawn at some distance north of the road from one of the side lines to the other. The note of the grant made on its "date by Jim-eno in the Toma de Razón also proves that the grant was not intended to embrace the whole league, poco mas 6 menos, solicited. For it states that there was issued to Yñigo a title for Posolmi, in extension one-half of a square league, a little more or less.

It is contended on the part of the claimants that the order of the governor of February 14th, directing the title to issue, is the controlling document in the case, and should govern in the determination of boundaries. It may be admitted that if no further proceedings had been had—if by negligence or accident the formal title had not been issued in obedience to the governor’s order, or if it had been lost and its contents could not be proved, the formal recognition by the governor of the rights of the Indian, contained in this order, would have been sufficient, if followed by a continuous occupation and possession under a notorious and undisputed claim of ownership, to create an equity which the United States would be bound to respect.

But in this ease not only the decree of concession is made on the following day and in obedience to the governor’s order, in which the rights of the petitioner are accurately defined, but the formal title is issued and accepted by him, declaring his boundaries with unmistakable precision. It is to these documents and to the endorsements on the Estrada expediente that the governor in his order on the petition of October 1, refers, as “declaring the prior rights” of Yñigo. If, then, there were any contradiction between the description of the land contained in the order for the title and that embodied in the decree of concession, the formal title, and the endorsement on the Estrada expediente, it is plain that these last should control. But in truth there is no such \ contradiction. The order describes the land as extending from the “aguage near his house.” (admitted to be the posita) to “where his house is situated and his small sowing field worked”—this last evidently referring to the house of wood on the eastern side of the tract. The order thus determines only the width of the tract; while the length is not defined. On referring to the diseño we find two houses represented,— one on the west, near the spring, and on the western boundary, and the other on the eastern boundary. The decree of concession mentions the same boundaries, and adds to them the sausal for a southern, and the estero for a northern, boundary.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
28 F. Cas. 388, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-walkinshaw-cand-1863.