Botiller v. Dominguez
Decision Date | 01 April 1889 |
Citation | 9 S.Ct. 525,32 L.Ed. 926,130 U.S. 238 |
Parties | BOTILLER et al. v. DOMINGUEZ. 1 |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
This is a writ of error to the supreme court of the state of California. The action was in the nature of ejectment, brought in the superior court of the county of Los Angeles by Dominga Dominguez against Brigido Botiller and others, to recover possession of a tract of land situated in said county, known as 'Rancho Las Virgenes.' The title of the plaintiff was a grant claimed to have been made by the government of Mexico to Nemecio Dominguez and Domingo Carrillo, on the 1st day of October, 1834, but no claim under this grant had ever been presented for confirmation to the board of land commissioners, appointed under the act of congress of March 3, 1851, (9 St. 631,) 'to ascertain and settle the private land claims in the state of California,' and no patent had ever issued from the United States to any one for the land, or for any part of it. It appeared that the defendants, Botiller and others, prior to the commencement of the action, had settled upon and severally were in the occupancy of the respective parcels or tracts of land claimed by them, and had improved and cultivated the same, and were in the possession thereof, with the pur- pose and intention of holding and improving the several tracts of land so severally held, as pre-emption or homestead settlers, claiming the same to be public lands of the United States. It was shown that they were competent and proper persons to make pre-emptions or nomestead claims, and that the land in controversy was within the territorial limits of she so-called 'Rancho Las Virgenes.' On this state of facts the judge of the inferior court instructed the jury as follows: To this ruling and instruction the defendants excepted. Judgment was rendered for plaintiff, which was affirmed by the supreme court of the state of California, and to that judgment this writ of error is directed. 13 Pac. Rep. 685.
J. M. Gitchell, for plaintiffs in error.
A. L. Rhodes, for defendant in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 239-242 intentionally omitted]
The principal error assigned, and the only one necessary to be considered here, is in the following language: 'The court erred in holding that under the said act of congress of March 3, 1851, it was not necessary for each and every person claiming lands in California by virtue of any right or title derived from the Spanish or Mexican governments to present such claim to the board of land commissioners appointed under said act.' The question presented is an important one in reference to land titles in the state of California, and is entitled to our serious consideration. Although it has been generally supposed that nearly all the private claims to any of the lands acquired by the United States from Mexico by the treaty of peace made at the close of the Mexican war have been presented to and passed upon by the board of commissioners appointed for that purpose by the act of 1851, yet claims are now often brought forward which have not been so passed upon by that board, and were never presented to it for consideration; and if the proposition on which the supreme court of California decided this case is a sound one,—namely, that the board constituted under that act had no jurisdiction of, and could not by their decree affect in any manner, a title which had been perfected under the laws of the Mexican government prior to the transfer of the country to the United States,—it is impossible to tell to what extent such claims of perfected titles may be presented, even in cases where the property itself has by somebody else been brought before that board and passed upon. The proposition seems to have been occasionally the subject of comment in the supreme court of California in the early days, after the land commission had ceased to exist, and it has also been frequently considered in decisions of this court of the same period. It is urged very forcibly by counsel for the plaintiff in error that this court has fully decided against it in several well-considered cases, and that previous to the case of Minturn v. Brower, 24 Cal. 644, the decisions, or at least the intimations, of the supreme court of California were also against the doctrine. By the treaty of peace, known as that of Guadalupe Hidalgo, of February 2, 1848, (9 St. 922,) which closed the controversies and the war between the United States and Mexico, a cession was made of a very large territory by the government of Mexico to the government of the United States. This was a transfer of the political dominion and of the proprietary interest in this land, but the government of Mexico caused to be inserted in the instrument certain provisions intended for the protection of private property owned by Mexicans within this territory at the time the treaty was made; and it may be con- ceded that the obligation of the United States to give such protection, both by this treaty and by the law of nations, was perfect. That portion of this territory which afterwards became a part of the United States, under the designation of the 'State of California,' had been taken possession of during the war, in the year 1846. Most of it was in a wild state of nature, with very few resident white persons, and very little land cultivated within its limits. Article 11 of the treaty describes it in the following language: 'Considering that a great part of the territories which, by the present treaty, are to be comprehended for the future within the limits of the United States, is now occupied by savage tribes, who will hereafter be under the exclusive control of the government of the United States, and whose incursions within the territory of Mexico would be prejudicial in the extreme, it is solemnly agreed that all such incursions shall be forcibly restrained by the government of the United States whensoever this may be necessary.' This extract from the treaty shows the character of the country which was acquired by the United States under that instrument.
Very soon after the American army took possession of California, in 1846, it was discovered that rich mines of the precious metals were abundant in that country, and a rush of emigration almost unparalleled in history to that region commenced, which was continued from that time on for many years. It was in this condition, as to population, of the territory itself, with a proprietary title in the United States to a vast region of country included within its limits, in which miners, ranchmen, settlers under the Mexican church authorities, and claimants under Mexican grants were widely scattered, that the state of California was admitted into the Union, and the necessity was presented for ascertaining by some means the validity of the claims of private individuals within its boundariew, and to establish them as distinct from the lands which belonged to the government. To this end congress passed a statute on the 3d day of March, 1851, en- titled 'An act to ascertain and settle the private land claims in the state of California.' 9 St. 631. The first section of that statute reads as follows: Several of the succeeding sections are devoted to providing for officers, declaring their duties, directing the mode of taking depositions, and regulating the sessions of the commissioners, the administration of oaths, and other matters. The eighth section is as follows: The ninth and tenth sections provide for appeals by the claimant and by the government from the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
O'DONNELL v. United States
...could be established if it was found to be valid, or rejected if it was invalid." (Italics supplied.) Botiller v. Dominguez (1889) 130 U.S. 238, 250, 9 S.Ct. 525, 528, 32 L.Ed. 926. See, also, Grisar v. McDowell, 6 Wall. (73 U.S.) 363, 374, 18 L.Ed. 863; Beard v. Federy (1865) 3 Wall. (70 U......
-
In re Faxon Bishop
...paves the way for an adjudication by the court of all the rights involved.” (p. 451.) A similar situation arose in the case of Botiller v. Dominguez, 130 U. S. 238. By the Act of Congress of March 3, 1851 (9 Stat. L. 631), every person claiming lands in California from the Spanish or Mexica......
-
Reid v. Covert Kinsella v. Krueger
...date will control the other * * *.' Head Money Cases, Edye v. Robertson, 112 U.S. 580, 5 S.Ct. 247, 28 L.Ed. 798; Botiller v. Dominguez, 130 U.S. 238, 9 S.Ct. 525, 32 L.Ed. 926; Chae Chan Ping v. United States, 130 U.S. 581, 9 S.Ct. 623, 32 L.Ed. 1068, See Clark v. Allen, 331 U.S. 503, 509—......
-
Chitimacha Tribe of Louisiana v. Harry L. Laws Co., Inc.
...The Louisiana Land Claims Act only required persons with "incomplete title" to file their claims. Botiller v. Dominquez, 130 U.S. 238, 252-54, 9 S.Ct. 525, 529-30, 32 L.Ed. 926 (1889); Maguire v. Tyler, 75 U.S. (8 Wall.) 650, 652, 19 L.Ed. 320 (1869); Fremont v. United States, 58 U.S. (17 H......
-
CHAPTER 13 TITLE EXAMINATION OF MINERAL INTERESTS IN FEE LANDS
...922; Gadsden Treaty, December 30, 1853, 10 Stat. 1031. [14] Act of March 3, 1851, 9 Stat. 631. [15] See, e.g., Botiller v. Dominguez, 130 U.S. 238 (1899). [16] U.S. v. O'Donnell, 303 U.S. 501 (1938). The 1851 Act specifically provides that any decree rendered or patent issued shall not affe......
-
TREATY OVERRIDE: THE FALSE CONFLICT BETWEEN WHITNEY AND COOK.
...Id. at 597 (emphasis added). (46.) See also supra note 44. (47.) 112 U.S. at 597 (emphasis added). (48.) See, e.g., Botiller v. Dominguez, 130 U.S. 238 (1889); Breardv. Greene, 523 U.S. 371 (1998); Horner v. United States, 143 U.S. 570 (1892). Alverez y Sanchez v. United States, 216 U.S. 16......
-
Getting Public Rights Wrong: The Lost History of the Private Land Claims.
...equitable title, which was never perfected under the former Government"). (341.) 24 Cal. 644 (1864), overruled by Botiller v. Dominguez, 130 U.S. 238 (342.) Id. at 656-57. (343.) Id. at 651-54 (argument of E.W.F. Sloan for respondent). (344.) Id. at 651. (345.) Id. at 668 (opinion of the co......
-
CHAPTER 12 ORIGINAL TITLE AND CREATION OF MINERAL RIGHTS
...Office (1968), p. 87, hereinafter cited as "Gates". [2] Gates, pp. 115, 117. [3] Act of 1891, 25 Stat. 859. [4] Botiller v. Dominguez, 130 U.S. 238 (1889). [5] United States v. McLaughlin, 127 U.S. 428 (1888). [6] United States v. Castillero, 2 Black (U.S.) 17, 167 (1863); Fremont v. Flower......