Bd. of Trustees of Anton Chico Land Grant v. Brown

• Decision Date: 12 June 1928
• Docket Number: No. 2637.,2637.
• Citation: 269 P. 51,33 N.M. 398
• Parties: BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF ANTON CHICO LAND GRANTv.BROWN et al.
• Court: New Mexico Supreme Court

33 N.M. 398

269 P. 51

BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF ANTON CHICO LAND GRANT

v.BROWN et al.

No. 2637.

Supreme Court of New Mexico.

June 12, 1928.

Syllabus by the Court.

In a contest of title to lands within original outboundaries and United States surveys of two Mexican grants, both confirmed by the same act of Congress, the one a town or community grant, senior as a Mexican concession, the other in form a perfect individual grant, but invalid for lack of authority in the granting officers to alienate the Mexican public domain, but senior in its application to the surveyor general for confirmation, and in having its boundaries fixed by United States survey, the lands in dispute never having been allotted in severalty under authority of the community grant, held:

Though the then claimants under the individual grant protested before the surveyor general confirmation of the other grant, and though the surveyor general may have decided and reported that the community grant had priority, and though Congress confirmed both “as recommended for confirmation by said surveyor general,” the confirmatory act (Act of June 21, 1860, 12 St. at L. 71) does not constitute an adjudication of title as between the two, since, by section 4, the rights of each are reserved as against the other.

The claim under the individual grant is superior, because confirmation of it effected a title relating back either to the date of original concession (1823) or to the date of application to the surveyor general for confirmation (1855), while confirmation of the community grant effected, as to its unallotted lands, but an “American title,” relating back, if at all, no further than to the date of its application for confirmation (1859).

Appeal from District Court, San Miguel County; Leahy, Judge.

Partition suit between Robert L. Brown and others, wherein the Board of Trustees of the Anton Chico Land Grant intervened. Judgment for intervener, and the other parties appeal. Reversed and remanded, with directions.

In a contest of title to lands within original outboundaries and United States surveys of two Mexican grants, both confirmed by the same act of Congress, the one a town or community grant, senior as a Mexican concession, the other in form a perfect individual grant, but invalid for lack of authority in the granting officers to alienate the Mexican public domain, but senior in its application to the surveyor general for confirmation, and in having its boundaries fixed by the United States survey, the lands in dispute never having been allotted in severalty under authority of the community, grant, held: (1) Though the then claimants under the individual grant protested before the surveyor general confirmation of the other grant and though the surveyor general may have decided and reported that the community grant had priority, and though Congress confirmed both “as recommended for confirmation by said surveyor general,” the confirmatory act, Act of June 21, 1860, 12 St. at L. 71, does not constitute an adjudication of title as between the two, since, by section 4, the rights of each are reserved as against the other. (2) The claim under the individual grant is superior, because confirmation of it effected a title relating back either to the date of original concession, 1823, or to the date of application to the surveyor general for confirmation, 1855, while confirmation of the community grant effected, as to its unallotted lands, but an “American title,” relating back, if at all, no further than to the date of its application for confirmation, 1859.

Andrieus A. Jones and A. T. Rogers, Jr., both of East Las Vegas, for appellants.

S. B. Davis, Jr., of Las Vegas, C. J. Roberts, of Santa Fé, and F. Faircloth, of Santa Rosa, for appellee.

WATSON, J.

Appellants are the present owners of New Mexico private land claim No. 1, and appellee of claim No. 29, both confirmed by Act of Congress of June 21, 1860 (12 St. at L. 71); subsequent to which act both were surveyed and patented, the former to Preston Beck, Jr., and the latter to Manuel Rivera and thirty-five others, unnamed, their children, successors and assigns. The former will be herein referred to as the Preston Beck grant, and the latter as the Anton Chico grant.

A suit was commenced in 1876 for partition of the Preston Beck grant. In the course of those proceedings, in 1903, Andrieus A. Jones was appointed receiver, and in such capacity took possession of the lands included within the Preston Beck survey. In 1907 the board of trustees of the Anton Chico Land Grant intervened, claiming superior title to a portion of such lands; such portion being included, as well, within the Anton Chico survey. The lands in dispute will be referred to as the overlap.

Upon the issues of the intervention, the trial court, upon specific findings and conclusions, awarded the overlap to the Anton Chico board. The present appeal is from that judgment. We recently handed down an opinion reversing the judgment and remanding the cause, with a direction to the district court to dismiss the intervention. A motion for rehearing is now before us. While we see no occasion to change our views as heretofore expressed, it appears that we may have misconceived some of appellee's contentions, and have been led into unnecessary discussion. We therefore withdraw the original opinion, and proceed anew.

The titles of both of these grants have been formerly in litigation. By reference to the decisions, we may abbreviate the statement of facts. Pino v. Hatch, 1 N. M. 125, and Stoneroad v. Beck, 16 N. M. 754, 120 P. 898, involved the Preston Beck title and disclose its history. The history of the Anton Chico grant is set forth in Reilly v. Shipman (C. C. A.) 266 F. 852.

The Preston Beck title originates in a concession made in December, 1823, to Juan Estevan Pino, by the then acting superior political chief of the province, with consent of the provincial deputation. Juridical possession was given in 1825, and appellants and their predecessors in interest seem to have had possession from that day to this. In May, 1855, the then owners of the grant initiated proceedings for confirmation before the surveyor general of New Mexico. He found the grant valid, and, on September 30, 1856, reported it favorably to the Secretary of the Interior, for confirmation by Congress. The survey was made in 1860 and approved in November of that year. Patent issued June 13, 1883.

On behalf of the Anton Chico grant, a concession is claimed by the Governor, dated May 2, 1822, and juridical possession given the same day. Its confirmation proceedings were initiated before the surveyor general in 1859. By his report, dated July 15, 1859, confirmation was recommended. Its survey was made in 1878, and corrected and approved in 1881. Its patent issued March 27, 1883.

The question is which of these two grants has the better right to the overlap. It can be decided upon consideration of appellee's contentions. They are: First, that the Anton Chico should prevail, because, as an original concession, it is prior; and, second, that, since the Preston Beck claimants protested before the surveyor general confirmation of the Anton Chico grant, and the surveyor general overruled the protest, the act of confirmation finally and conclusively adjudicated the question of superiority of title. It will be more convenient to dispose of the second contention first.

[1] The confirmatory act describes no lands and names no confirmees. It confirms the grants as recommended for confirmation by the surveyor general, and by the numbers by which he had designated them in his report. Section 4 provides:

“That the foregoing confirmation shall only be construed as quitclaims or relinquishments, on the part of the United States, and shall not affect the adverse rights of any other person or persons whomsoever.” (12 Stat. 71.)

Pursuant to this section, there was inserted in the granting clause of both patents this:

“* * * But with the further stipulation that in virtue of the provisions of the aforesaid Act of Congress of the 21st of June, A. D. 1860, that the foregoing confirmation shall only be construed as quitclaims or relinquishments on the part of the United States and shall not affect the adverse rights of any other person or persons whomsoever.”

So, to render the confirmatory act intelligible, reference must be had to the proceedings before, and particularly the reports of, the surveyor general. By his report of September 30, 1856, he had said of the Beck grant that it “vests in the grantee a title in fee to all the land embraced within the boundaries set forth in the granting decree.” By his report of July 15, 1859, he said of the Anton Chico grant:

“This claim is contested by the heirs of Preston Beck, deceased, so far as it conflicts with the grant made to Juan E. Pino, of which they are the assigns.

The grant made by Melgares on the 2d May, 1822, severed the land from the public domain, and placed it beyond the further reach and control of the government.”

Appellee considers this a plain expression of the surveyor general that the Anton Chico title is superior because its earlier grant severed the land in question from the public domain, and placed it beyond the power of the Mexican government to grant it again. So, it is argued, a confirmation of the grant as recommended by the surveyor general includes a ratification by Congress of the surveyor general's decision upon the question and a conclusive adjudication of it. Appellants do not agree with this interpretation of the report, but we may pass that question.

An obvious objection to appellee's contention is that, by section 4, Congress apparently declared that it was not adjudicating anything as between the confirmees and other claimants of the same lands, but was merely deciding the rights of the confirmees as against the government. Section 4 is an apt expression of a refusal to consider or act upon...