Atherton v. Fowler

• Decision Date: 01 October 1877
• Parties: ATHERTON v. FOWLER
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

96 U.S. 513

24 L.Ed. 732

ATHERTON v. FOWLER.

October Term, 1877

ERROR to the Supreme Court of the State of California.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Mr. Montgomery Blair for the plaintiff in error.

Mr. S. F. Phillips, contra.

MR. JUSTICE MILLER delivered the opinion of the court.

This case originates in an action of replevin brought by Page, who died during the progress of the litigation, and is now represented by Atherton, his executor, the plaintiff in error. The plaintiff below obtained possession of the hay, which was the subject of the writ of replevin; but, on trial before a jury, they found he was not entitled to the possession, and judgment for the value of the hay was rendered against him. This judgment was affirmed on appeal to the Supreme Court of the State, and is now brought before us for review on questions which relate to the rights acquired in the soil from which the hay was cut, or rather which might have been acquired to such soil under acts of Congress.

The hay, which is the subject of controversy, was cut in the summer of 1863, on part of the land embraced within the Vallejo grant of the Soscol ranch.

The history of the title to that ranch is given in the report of Frisbie v. Whitney, 9 Wall. 187. The claim of Vallejo to the confirmation of the grant was finally decided against him in this court, March 22, 1862. By virtue of the thirteenth section of the act of Congress of March 3, 1851 (9 Stat. 633), the land embraced within his claim became public land of the United States whenever it was finally decided to be invalid. No public survey had been extended over these lands at that time, and the whole of the Soscol ranch was held in possession, and had been for years, under the Mexican patent to Vallejo, and by tenants or purchasers under his title.

Novertheless, a large unmber of persons who had previously no interest in or claim to or possession of any part of this land invaded it by force, tore down the fences, dispossessed those who occupied it, and built on and cultivated parts of it, under pretence of establishing a right of pre-emption to the several parts which they so seized. The general character of this movement is well described in Frisbie v. Whitney, supra.

The defendants in this case, though taking no part in the night invasion mentioned in that case, did, during the spring and summer of 1862 and 1863, enter upon the lands in the possession of Page,—land which in every instance was enclosed within fences, and which was in actual cultivation. And this entry was without asking the consent, or having in any way the permission, of those in possession, but by forcibly driving them out. The hay, which is the subject of the controversy, was cut from meadows or grounds set in grass by Page. These facts are stated, or evidence from which the jury had a right to infer them, in a case made by the parties, on which the Supreme Court finally decided it.

But Congress, on the third day of March, 1863, enacted that all settlers on the land claiming under Vallejo might enter the land held by them to the extent of their actual possession at $1.25 per acre, and have a patent for the same as soon as the surveys were extended over the ranch. So that, when the hay in controversy was cut, the defendants knew, or should have known, that they were mere trespassers on the lands of Page, and had no right to the hay.

It is, however, to be considered that there is the doctrine that a person having the legal title to land, but out of possession, cannot maintain the action of replevin for hay or timber cut on the land. This general doctrine has been modified both by statute and by judicial decision in the several States, until it is not easy to say exactly how much of it is left in any one of the States. In the case before us, the court, on the trial, gave the law on the subject very clearly; and, as it is a doctrine not affected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, we must take it to have been correctly expounded to the jury.

The court instructed them, that, if plaintiff was in the actual possession of the land when the defendants entered, there was no disseisin; and the subsequent possession of defendants did not oust that of the plaintiff, unless they found that they had entered in good faith, with intent to pre-empt the land on which the hay was cut, and that they had the actual possession of it at the time the hay was cut. To the last part of this instruction plaintiff excepted. The court also said: 'If you believe from the evidence that the defendants entered in good faith, with intention to pre-empt the land on which the hay was cut, and had actual possession of it at the time the hay was cut, your verdict should be for the defendants.'

The plaintiff asked the court to charge the jury, that, if he was in the actual possession of the land, having cultivated it for several years previously, and the defendants broke through his enclosure against his consent, the entry was unlawful, though the land might be public land, the prior right of pre-emption belonging to him who had the prior and continued possession. This the court refused.

In short, it is obvious that the case was made by the court to turn on the assumption that the land was, in its then condition, liable to be pre-empted by defendants, against the wishes of plaintiff, and that, to effect the entry and cultivation necessary to establish the right of pre-emption, the defendants could, by force and violence and by breaking into an actual enclosure and by turning the plaintiff out, acquire such right of pre-emption, and at the same time a bona fide possession.

Unless the laws of the United States justify this conduct, the instructions of the court were erroneous, and to the prejudice of the plaintiff in a matter involving his rights under the acts of Congress.

At the time this action was tried, Page had obtained title to the land under the act of March 3, 1865. This related back to his possession under the Vallejo grant; and the title in this action was not disputed. It was simply a question before the court in that trial, therefore, whether the intention to pre-empt the land changed what would otherwise have been a mere trespass into a bona fide possession which would defeat the present action.

Undoubtedly, there have been cases, and may be cases again, where two persons making settlement on different parts of the same quarter-section of land may present conflicting claims to the right of pre-emption of the whole quarter-section, and neither of them be a trespasser upon the possession of the other, for the reason that the quarter-section is open, unenclosed, and neither party interferes with the actual possession of the other. In such cases, the settlement of the later of the two may be bona fide, for many reasons. The first party may not have the qualifications necessary to a pre-emptor, or he may have pre-empted other land, or he may have permitted the time for filing his declaration to elapse, in which case the statute expressly declares that another person may become pre-emptor, or it may not be known that the settlements are on the same quarter. Johnson v. Towsley, 13 Wall. 72; sect. 15, act of Sept. 4, 1841, 5 Stat. 455.

But all these cases suppose that...