AMERICAN LAND CO. V. ZEISS
Citation | 219 U. S. 47 |
Decision Date | 03 January 1911 |
Court | United States Supreme Court |
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
The general welfare of society is involved in the security and registry of titles to real estate, and those subjects are within the police power of the state.
A state, in the exercise of its inherent power to legislate in regard to title to the soil within its confines, may, without violating the federal Constitution, require parties owning and in possession of land to establish title by judicial proceedings before properly constituted tribunals, and this power extends to nonresident owners of land who may be brought before such tribunals by publication.
A state possesses, and, after such a disaster to a community as befell San Francisco, California, by fire and earthquake in 1906, in which nearly all the public records of registered titles to real estate were destroyed, may exercise, the power to remedy the confusion and uncertainty arising from the catastrophe.
Undisclosed and unknown claimants are as dangerous to the stability of titles to real estate as other classes, and they are not deprived of their property without due process of law if compelled to establish their titles by judicial proceeding before a properly constituted tribunal on adequate published notice, if given an opportunity to be heard and properly protected in case of fraud.
A state statute, passed after such a catastrophe as visited San Francisco in 1906 for the purpose of reestablishing titles to real estate, which permits an action for that purpose to be brought by parties who are themselves, or by those holding under them, in actual and peaceable possession of the property described in the summons, and which requires the plaintiff to make affidavit before the summons is issued that he does not know and has never been informed of any adverse claimants not named in the summons, and also requires summons to be published at least once a week for two months, posted on each parcel of the property, and to be recorded and properly
indexed in the recorder's office and served upon all claimants whose names and whereabouts could be ascertained, gives an adequate opportunity to all persons interested in the property to establish their rights, and does not deprive unknown claimants of their property without due process of law.
The Fourteenth Amendment does not operate to deprive the states of their lawful power; the due process clause of that Amendment only restrains such exertions of power as are so unreasonable and unjust as to impair or destroy fundamental rights, and therefore not really within lawful power of the state.
This Court, in determining the constitutionality of a state statute, is bound by the construction given to it by the highest court of the state and will treat it as exacting whatever the state court has declared that it exacts either expressly or by implication.
In determining the constitutionality of a state statute under the due process clause, the criterion is not whether any injury to an individual is possible, but whether the requirements as to notice and opportunity to protect property rights affected are just and reasonable.
It being within the power of the state to determine how title to real estate shall be proved, it is also within the legislative competency of that state to establish the method of procedure.
Due process of law requires that there shall be jurisdiction of, and notice to, the parties, and opportunity to be heard, and, subject to these conditions, the state has power to regulate procedure. Twining v. New Jersey, 211 U. S. 78.
The California statute, c. 59, of June 16, 1906, to establish titles in case of loss of public records, passed after the earthquake and fire of April, 1906, as construed by the highest state court, is within the legislative power of the state, provides adequate notice and protection to unknown claimants, affords opportunity to be heard, and is not unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment as depriving unknown claimants of their property without due process of law.
As a result of the conditions caused in San Francisco by the great calamity of earthquake and fire which befell that city in April, 1906, an extraordinary session of the Legislature of California was convoked. One reason stated for the call was the necessity of providing for restoring the record title to land in San Francisco. An act to accomplish
that purpose became a law upon its approval on June 16, 1906. It is copied on the margin.*
The circuit court of appeals has certified the issues involved in a pending cause, the determination of which rests upon the validity of the statute just referred to. The pertinent facts arising on the record of the cause are stated in the certificate, and are hereafter set forth. The purpose contemplated is to obtain instructions as to
whether the act in question "is violative of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States," and whether by virtue of a decree rendered by the Superior
Court of the City and County of San Francisco, referred to in the recital of facts, the American Land Company "has been deprived of its property without due process of law."
The following are the facts recited in the certificate:
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WHITE, after making the foregoing statement, delivered the opinion of the Court.
Although not objecting to an answer to the questions, nevertheless the American Land Company, which was the appellant below, suggests at bar a want of power to reply to the questions for a two-fold reason: first, because
the certificate on its face indicates that the court below was not in a state of mind which required the instruction of this Court, but was merely desirous of provoking a direct decision by this Court, to avoid the delay and the public inconvenience which otherwise might result. Second, because the certificate is so broad as simply to refer the whole case to this Court for decision, instead of presenting definite propositions of law for solution. While it may be that these suggestions find possible support, considering the record in a...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Gill v. More
...48 N.W. 773, 24 Am.St.Rep. 212; Title, etc., Co. v. Kerrigan, 150 Cal. 289, 88 P. 356, 8 L.R.A. (N.S.) 682, 119 Am.St.Rep. 199; American Land Co. v. Zeiss, supra. the averments of the present bill we are constrained to hold that our statutes giving the right to quiet titles to lands as to a......
-
Mississippi State Tax Commission v. Flora Drug Co
... ... Bowditch ... v. Boston, 101 U.S. 16; American Co. v. Zeiss, 219 ... U.S. 47, 55 L.Ed. 82; Lawton v. State, 152 U.S. 137, 38 L.Ed ... ...
-
Mennonite Board of Missions v. Adams
...reference to the subject with which the statute deals.' " 339 U.S., at 315, 70 S.Ct., at 657 (quotingAmerican Land Co. v. Zeiss, 219 U.S. 47, 67, 31 S.Ct. 200, 207, 55 L.Ed. 82 (1911)). The Court also suggests that its broad rule has really been the law ever since Mullane. See ante, at 796-......
-
Arenas v. United States
...128, 139-140, 43 P.2d 797. 28 Cf. Arndt v. Griggs, 1890, 134 U.S. 316, 320, 10 S.Ct. 557, 33 L.Ed. 918; American Land Co. v. Zeiss, 1910, 219 U.S. 47, 60-64, 31 S.Ct. 200, 55 L.Ed. 82; Wilhelm v. Consolidated Oil Corp., 10 Cir., 1936, 84 F.2d 739, 746-747. And see, County of Los Angeles v. ......
-
Unborn children as constitutional persons.
...Bauserman v. Blunt, 147 U.S. 647, 13 S. Ct. 466; Balkam v. Woodstock Iron Co., 154 U.S. 177, 14 S. Ct. 1010; American Land Co. v. Zeiss, 219 U.S. 47, 31 S. Ct. 200; Quong Ham Wah Co. v. Industrial Accident Commission, 255 U.S. 445, 41 S. Ct. 373; North Laramie Land Co. v. Hoffman, 268 U.S. ......
-
Mcle Self-study Article Tips of the Trade: Why Over-notice? Because Due Process Might Demand It.
...Clause which would place impossible or impractical obstacles in the way could not be justified.")38. American Land Co. v. Zeiss (1911) 219 U.S. 47, 67 ("The criterion is not the possibility of conceivable injury but the just and reasonable character of the requirements, having reference to ......
-
Bfp v. Rtc: Limiting the Use of Section 548 to Set Aside Foreclosure Sales
...5, 1984). 23. 11 U.S.C. §§ 1101 to 1174. 24. 11 U.S.C. § 548. 25. Supra, note 1 at 565. 26. Id. at 568, citing American Land Co. v. Zeiss, 219 U.S. 47 (1911). 27. See id. at 569. 28. See id. at 567. 29. See In re Cucumber Creek, 33 B.R. 820 (D.Colo. 1983). Column Eds.: Caroline Fuller of Fa......