Crittenden Cattle Co. v. Ainsa

• Decision Date: 02 November 1912
• Docket Number: Civil 1250
• Citation: 14 Ariz. 306,127 P. 733
• Parties: CRITTENDEN CATTLE COMPANY, a Corporation, OSCAR ASHBURN, MANUEL FRANCO and GILBERTO PEREZ, Appellants, v. SANTIAGO AINSA, Administrator With Will Annexed of the Estate of FRANK ELY, Deceased, Appellee
• Court: Arizona Supreme Court

127 P. 733

14 Ariz. 306

CRITTENDEN CATTLE COMPANY, a Corporation, OSCAR ASHBURN, MANUEL FRANCO and GILBERTO PEREZ, Appellants, v. SANTIAGO AINSA, Administrator With Will Annexed of the Estate of FRANK ELY, Deceased, Appellee

Civil No. 1250

Supreme Court of Arizona

November 2, 1912

APPEAL from a judgment of the District Court of the Second Judicial District in and for the county of Santa Cruz. Fletcher M Doan, Judge. Affirmed.

The facts are stated in the opinion.

Mr John B. Wright, for Appellants.

Mr. S M. Franklin, for Appellee.

OPINION

ROSS, J.

Appellee, as administrator, instituted this action to quiet his title to the San Jose de Sonoita grant. Appellant Crittenden Cattle Company admits title in appellee to all of the grant except certain portions thereof, which portions it claims to own by being in adverse possession the necessary time under the Arizona statute of limitations. The other defendants filed disclaimers.

Appellee deraigns title to the grant from the Mexican government dated May 15, 1824. This grant was a part of the "Gadsden purchase," and was a complete and perfect grant before the purchase. Ely's Admr. v. United States, 171 U.S. 220, 43 L.Ed. 142, 18 S.Ct. 840.

On December 30, 1879, the owner of said grant filed in the office of the United States surveyor general of the territory of Arizona his petition praying for the confirmation to him of said San Jose de Sonoita grant, accompanying which petition were the original title papers of said grant, in an effort to conform with the terms of the Acts of July 22, 1854, chapter 103, section 8, 10 Stat. 308, 309, and of July 15, 1879, chapter 292, 16 Stat. 291, 304. January 14, 1880, the surveyor general reported said grant to the Congress of the United States and recommended its confirmation to the extent of one and three-fourths square leagues. The Congress failed to act on this report. March 3, 1891, Congress passed an act creating the court of private land claims (26 Stat. 854), and conferred on this court the jurisdiction to hear and determine questions of the existence, boundaries, and extent of private grants in New Mexico and Arizona. In September, 1892, the United States instituted a suit in the court of private land claims against Ainsa, administrator, et al., to have the title to the Sonoita grant "settled and determined, and if the title be adjudicated to be valid, that the extent and boundaries thereof be then settled and adjudicated." In October, 1897, the Sonoita grant was held valid by the supreme court of the United States to the extent of one and three-fourths sitios. Ely's Admr. v. United States, 171 U.S. 220, 43 L.Ed. 142, 18 S.Ct. 840. August 6, 1902, a decree of confirmation was made and entered in the court of private land claims in conformity with the judgment of the United States supreme court confirming appellee's title to 5,123.42 acres. April 12, 1904, the court of private land claims entered its order approving survey of grant made under direction of the Secretary of the Interior. October 29, 1906, patent to grant was issued to original grantee, his heirs, successors, and assigns. This suit was instituted in November, 1909.

The appellant and its predecessors in interest have occupied and used the portions of the grant here in controversy for more than ten years before the institution of this suit, and it claims title by virtue of the three, five, and ten year statutes of limitations. The appellee's claim, among others, is that the statutes of limitation did not begin to run until the issuance of the patent to the grant on October 29, 1906.

If that be true, the three-year statute of limitation cannot apply, for the reason that the appellant's evidence failed to show a title from or under the sovereignty of the soil, either regular or irregular, and, should we sustain the views of appellee, the five and ten-year limitation are not well taken, for the reason that this suit was begun within those limits after patent was issued.

The Sonoita being a complete and perfect grant before the Gadsden purchase, the appellant insists that limitation began to run from March 3, 1891, the date of the creation of the court of private land claims. That limitation did not begin to run in favor of occupants of the grant prior to that date we think is well settled. Astiazaran v. Santa Rita L. & M. Co., 148 U.S. 80, 37 L.Ed. 376, 13 S.Ct. 457. The owner of this grant had applied to the political department of the government as early as 1879 to have his grant determined, and no action had been taken on his application at the time of the creation of the court of private land claims. As was said in Astiazaran v. Santa Rita L. & M. Co., 148 U.S. 80, 81, 37 L.Ed. 376, 13 S.Ct. 457, involving a grant in New Mexico: "Undoubtedly, private rights of property within the ceded territory were not affected by the change of sovereignty and jurisdiction, and were entitled to protection, whether the party had the full and absolute ownership of the land, or merely an equitable interest therein, which required some further act of the government to vest in him a perfect title. But the duty of providing the mode of securing these rights, and of fulfilling the obligations imposed upon the United States by the treaties, belonged to the political department of the government; and Congress might either itself discharge that duty, or delegate it to the judicial department. De la Croix v. Chamberlain, 12 Wheat. 599, 601, 602, 6 L.Ed. 741; Chouteau v. Eckhart, 2 How. 344, 374, 11 L.Ed. 293; Tameling v. United States Freehold Co., 93 U.S. 644, 661, 23 L.Ed. 998; Botiller v. Dominguez, 130 U.S. 238, 32 L.Ed. 926, 9 S.Ct. 525. . . .

"But Congress reserved to itself the determination of such claims; and enacted that the surveyor general for the territory, under the instructions of the Secretary of the Interior, should ascertain the origin, nature, character and extent of all such claims; and for this purpose might issue notices, summon witnesses, administer oaths and do all other necessary acts; and should make a full report on such claims, with his decision as to the validity or invalidity of each under the laws, usages and customs of the country before its cession to the United States; and that his report should be laid before Congress for such action thereon as might be deemed just and proper, with a view to confirm bona fide grants, and to give full effect to the treaty of 1848 between the United States and Mexico. Acts of July 22, 1854, c. 103, sec. 8, 10 Stat. 309; July 15, 1870, c. 292, 16 Stat. 304."

In the case of Stoneroad v. Stoneroad, 158 U.S. 240, 248, 249, 250, 39 L.Ed. 966, 15 S.Ct. 822, 825, 826, having in view the duties and powers of the national government in the matter of surveys of both public land and private land grants, Justice White said: "The practice of the United States in dealing with the public domain and all governmental grants of land is to survey and issue a patent. For this purpose, in the proper administrative branch of the government, accurate and efficient machinery, accompanied with full remedial process for the correction of error, is provided. In speaking of the general policy of the law as to the surveying of the public domain, including private land grants, this court, through Mr. Justice Lamar, in Knight v. United States Land Assn., 142 U.S. 161, 177, 35 L.Ed. 974, 12 S.Ct. 258, 264, said:

"That section provides as...