City and County of San Francisco v. Scott
| Decision Date | 05 May 1884 |
| Citation | 111 U.S. 768,4 S.Ct. 688,28 L.Ed. 593 |
| Parties | CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO and another v. SCOTT |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Harry I. Thornton, for plaintiff in error.
Sidney V. Smith, Jr., for defendant in error.
There is no federal question in this case. The right of San Francisco under the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo to the lands in dispute as pueblo lands is not denied. Precisely what that right was may not be easy to state. Mr. Justice FIELD, speaking for the court, said, in Townsend v. Greely, 5 Wall. 336: This definition was accepted as substantially accurate in Grisar v. McDowell, 6 Wall. 372, and Palmer v. Lowe, 98 U. S. 16.
The act of July 1, 1864, c. 194, § 5, (13 St. 333,) simply released to the city all the right and title of the United States in the lands, (Hoadley v. San Francisco, 94 U. S. 5), and thus perfected the incomplete Mexican title for the uses and purposes specified. Palmer v. Lowe, supra. Its effect was to surrender all future control of the United States over the disposition and use of the property by the city.
The only controversy in this case is as to the effect of the alcalde grant of the pueblo title; and the precise question submitted to the supreme court of the state for determination was, 'whether, after the conquest * * * and before the incorporation of the city of San Francisco, and before the adoption of the constitution of the state of California, a person exercising the functions of an alcalde of the pueblo of San Francisco * * * could make a valid grant of pueblo lands, as such officers had been before such conquest accustomed to do,' and, if so, what would be the effect of such a grant? This does not depend on any legislation of congress, or on the terms of the treaty, but on the effect of the conquest upon the powers of local government in the pueblo under the Mexican laws. That is a question of general public law, as to which the decisions of the state court are not reviewable here. This has been many times decided. Delmas v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Al-Hamdi
... ... Metropolitan Dade County, 741 F.2d 1328, 1331 (11th Cir. 1984). Moreover, and perhaps most ... Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 241 n. 6 (4th Cir.1999). Moreover, the ... ...
-
Tullock v. Joab Mulvane
...L. Ins. Co. v. Hendren, 92 U. S. 287, 23 L. ed. 709; Rockhold v. Rockhold, 92 U. S. 130, 23 L. ed. 507.' In San Francisco v. Scott, 111 U. S. 768, 28 L. ed. 593, 4 Sup. Ct. Rep. 688, referring to the question as to the effect of an alcalde grant of the pueblo title, and which was decided by......
-
Giles v. Little
...to review the judgment of the state court in this case. Bank v. Cooper, 120 U. S. 778, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 777; San Francisco v. Scott. 111 U. S. 768, 4 Sup. Ct. Rep. 688; San Francisco v. Itsell, 133 U. S. 65, ante, 241. If the state court had refused to give due effect to a final judgment of ......
-
Chicago Co v. Wiggins Ferry Co
...Bank v. McVeigh, 98 U. S. 333; Dugger v. Bocock, 104 U. S. 601; Allen v. McVeigh, 107 U. S. 433; S. C. 2 Sup. Ct. Rep. 558; San Francisco v. Scott, 111 U. S. 768; S. C. 4 Sup. Ct. Rep. 688; Grame v. Assurance Co., 112 U. S. 273; S. C. 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 150. It is not enough to give us jurisdi......
-
Customary international law as U.S. law: a critique of the revisionist and intermediate positions and a defense of the modern position.
...of such law were reviewable in the Supreme Court as a constitutional matter. The decision in City & County of San Francisco v. Scott, 111 U.S. 768 (1884), cited by Weisburd, supra note 18, at 39 & nn.235-37, may have rested on the same statutory ground. See Scott, 111 U.S. at 769 ("......