Allejandro Barker v. Downey Harvey 209 Jesus Quevas v. Downey Harvey 210
Decision Date | 13 May 1901 |
Docket Number | Nos. 209 and 210,s. 209 and 210 |
Citation | 181 U.S. 481,21 S.Ct. 690,45 L.Ed. 963 |
Parties | ALLEJANDRO BARKER, Baleriana Barker, Angela Barker, et al., Plffs. in Err. , v. J. DOWNEY HARVEY, Administrator of the Estate of John G. Downey, Deceased, and the Merchants' Exchange Bank of San Francisco. (209) JESUS QUEVAS, Sometimes Called Jesus Cuevo, et al., Plffs. in Err. , v. J. DOWNEY HARVEY, Administrator of the Estate of John G. Downey, Deceased. (210) |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
These cases were brought by defendants in error in the superior court of the county of San Diego, California, to quiet their title to certain premises in that county. Decrees rendered in their favor were carried to the supreme court of the state, and by that court affirmed. 126 Cal. 262, 58 Pac. 692. To such affirmance these writs of error have been sued out.
The facts in the cases are so nearly alike that it is sufficient to consider only the first. The land in question is within the limits of the territory ceded to the United States by the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, February 2, 1848. 9 Stat. at L. 922. Generally speaking, the plaintiffs claim title by virtue of a patent issued to John J. Warner on January 16, 1880, in confirmation of two grants made by the Mexican government. On the other hand, the defendants do not claim a fee in the premises but only a right of permanent occupancy by virtue of the alleged fact that they are mission Indians, so called, and had been in occupation of the premises long before the Mexican grants, and, of course, before any dominion acquired by this government over the territory; insisting, further, that the government of Mexico had always recognized the lawfulness and permanence of their occupancy, and that such right of occupancy was protected by the terms of the treaty and the rules of international law.
The treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo provided in article 8 as follows:
'Mexicans now established in territories previously belonging to Mexico, and which remain for the future within the limits of the United States, as defined by the present treaty, shall be free to continue where they now reside, or to remove at any time to the Mexican Republic, retaining the property which they possess in the said territories, or disposing thereof, and removing the proceeds wherever they please, without their being subjected, on this account, to any contribution, tax, or charge whatever.
Article 10, as originally prepared, was stricken out by the Senate, but in the protocol signed by the representatives of the two nations, at the time of the ratification, on May 26, 1848, it was stated:
'2d. The American government by suppressing the 10th article of the treaty of Guadalupe did not in any way intend to annul the grants of lands made by Mexico in the ceded territories. These grants, notwithstanding the suppression of the article of the treaty, preserve the legal value which they may possess, and the grantees may cause their legitimate [titles] to be acknowledged before the American tribunals.
'Conformably to the law of the United States, legitimate titles to every description of property, personal and real, existing in the ceded territory, are those which were legitimate titles under the Mexican law in California and New Mexico, up to the 13th of May, 1846, and in Texas up to the 2d March, 1836.' Ex. Doc. No. 50 H. R. 30th Cong. 2d Sess. p. 77.
After the acquisition of this territory Congress, on March 3, 1851 (9 Stat. at L. 631, chap. 41), passed an act entitled 'An Act to Ascertain and Settle the Private Land Claims in the State of California,' which created a commission to receive and act upon all petitions for confirmation of such claims. Its decision was subject to appeal to the district court of the United States, and thence to this court. As originally organized the commission was to continue for three years, but that time was extended by subsequent legislation. Sections 8, 13, 15, and 16 are as follows:
On the trial before the court, without a jury, the findings of fact were in substance that the plaintiffs had the ownership in fee simple of the premises described; that the defendants had no rights or interest therein, and the decree was in accordance therewith. The statement on appeal prepared by the trial court disclosed that the plaintiffs introduced in evidence the patent to John J. Warner, which patent recited the filing of a petition by Warner with the land commission praying for confirmation of his title, a title based on two Mexican grants,—one June 8, 1840, to Jos e Antonio Pico by Juan B. Alvarado, then constitutional governor of the Californias, and the second, November 28, 1844, to petitioner by Manuel Micheltorena, governor general commandant and inspector general of the Californias; recited also a decree of confirmation of such title, an appeal to the district court of the United States, and an affirmance of the decision of the commission, the return of the surveyor general of the state showing a survey; and conveyed the premises to Warner, 'but with the stipulation that in virtue of the 15th ...
To continue reading
Request your trial- Robinson v. Salazar
-
Dugan v. Montoya
... ... Ed. 805; Sherman v. Buick, 93 U. S. 209, 23 L. Ed. 849; Iron Co. v. Cunningham, 155 U. S ... 273, 284, 14 Sup. Ct. 820, 38 L. Ed. 714; Barker v. Harvey, 181 U. S. 481, 21 Sup. Ct. 690, 45 L ... ...
-
Hynes v. Grimes Packing Co
... ... 209, 217—219, 58 S.Ct. 834, 838 839, 82 L.Ed. 1294 ... Sanger, 92 U.S. 761, 763, 23 L.Ed. 769; Barker v. Harvey, 181 U.S. 481, 490, 21 S.Ct. 690, 693, ... ...
-
Northwestern Bands of Shoshone Indians v. United States v. 10 8212 13, 1944
... ... Cf. Barker v. Harvey, 181 U.S. 481, 491, 21 S.Ct. 690, 694, ... ...
-
"We Hold the Government to Its Word": How McGirt v. Oklahoma Revives Aboriginal Title.
...case law established that the Act of 1851 fully extinguished any existing aboriginal title" in California (citing Barker v. Harvey, 181 U.S. 481, 491-92 (332.) Act of Mar. 3, 1851, ch. 41, [section][section] 1, 8, 9 Stat. 631, 631-32. (333.) Id. [section] 13. (334.) Flushman & Barbieri,......
-
Getting Public Rights Wrong: The Lost History of the Private Land Claims.
...hold superior titles, such as will enable them to resist successfully any action of the government in disposing of the property."). (379.) 181 U.S. 481,482 (1901) (statement of the (380.) See id. at 489-91 (opinion of the Court). (381.) Mat 487-89,491. (382.) Id. at 492. (383.) United State......
-
CHAPTER 5 EXAMINATION OF TITLE TO INDIAN LANDS
...Ann Snohomish Cladoosby, 94 I.D. 199, 202 (1987), citing F. Cohen's Handbook of Federal Indian Law, 472 (1982 ed.). [35] Barker v. Harvey, 181 U.S. 481 (1901). [36] See, United States ex rel. Chunie v. Ringrose, 788 F.2d 638 (9th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1009 (1986). [37] Pueblo o......
-
CHAPTER 1 GENESIS AND EVOLUTION OF LAND AND MINERAL OWNERSHIP IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES
...[114] 34 Ops. Att'y Gen. 178 (1924). [115] 72 Stat. 1686-1690 (1958); GIBBONS, Supra n. 24, at 76. [116] 25 U.S.C. § 177 (1963). [117] 181 U.S. 481, 490 (1900). [118] 1 AMERICAN LAW OF MINING §2.1 (1960). [119] 30 U.S.C. § 351 (1971). ...