Franklin Lane v. Cornelius Watts

Decision Date02 November 1914
Docket NumberNo. 889,889
Citation35 S.Ct. 3,59 L.Ed. 104,235 U.S. 17
PartiesFRANKLIN K. LANE, Secretary of the Interior, and Clay Tallman, Commissioner of the General Land Office, Appts., v. CORNELIUS C. WATTS, Dabney C. T. Davis, Jr., John Watts and James W. Vroom
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Assistant Attorney General West and Mr. C. Edward Wright for petition.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 18-20 intentionally omitted] Messrs. G. H. Brevillier, James W. Vroom, and Herbert Noble, opposed.

Mr. Justice McKenna delivered the opinion of the court:

Leave to file an application for rehearing is asked. We see no reason to grant it, but to avoid misunderstanding of the opinion we may add a few words.

The opinion is explicit as to the main elements of decision. It decides that the title to the lands involved passed to the heirs of Baca by the location of the float and its approval by the officers of the Land Department and order for survey in 1864, in pursuance of the act of 1860 (12 Stat. at L. 71, 72, chap. 167). A survey, it was said, was necessary to segregate the land from the public domain, and the condition was satisfied by the Contzen survey. It follows, therefore, that the land was not subject to homestead or other entry under the public land laws, and the asserted jurisdiction of the Land Department over it for that purpose could be restrained.

It is suggested, however, by appellees that appellants urge that certain claimed Mexican grants conflict with the location, and that the opinion leaves uncertain the effect of this, and that therefore it may encourage or require further litigation. Appellants assert that the effect of the claimed Mexican grants is reserved from decision, and yet the Land Department is enjoined from exercising any jurisdiction over the conflicting areas.

A few words of explanation will make certain the extent of our decision. In adjustment of the conflict between the Baca grant and the grant to the town of Las Vegas, the act of 1860 was passed. The quantity and the manner of location were defined. The land was to be located in square bodies and be 'vacant land, not mineral, in the territory of New Mexico,' and it was made the duty of the surveyor general of New Mexico to survey and locate the lands when selected by the heirs of Baca. There were no other conditions, and these were fulfilled in 1864.

But it is said that portions of the tract as located were then embraced in two claimed Mexican grants; to wit, the Tumacacori and Calabazas grant and the San Jos e de Sonoita grant, and that by virtue of § 8 of the act of July 22, 1854 (10 Stat. at L. 308, chap. 103), the lands covered by such claims were reserved from other disposal and therefore from location under the Baca float. That section made it the duty of the surveyor general of New Mexico, under such instructions as might be given by the Secretary of the Interior, to ascertain the character and extent of claims to such lands under the laws, usages, and customs of Mexico and Spain, and to make full report on all such claims as originated before the cession of the territory to the United States by the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo of 1848 [9 Stat. at L. 922], and report the same to Congress for its consideration and action. It was provided that 'until the final action by Congress on such claims, all lands covered thereby shall be reserved from sale or other disposal by the government, and shall not be subject to the donations granted by the previous provisions of this act.'

Subsequently, by the act of August 4, 1854, the territory acquired under the Gadsden treaty [10 Stat. at L. 1031] was incorporated with the territory of New Mexico and made subject to the laws of that territory (10 Stat. at L. 575, chap. 245). Assuming, not deciding, that this...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • O'DONNELL v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • June 7, 1937
    ...treaty did not constitute such a withdrawal are Lockhart v. Johnson, 181 U.S. 516, 21 S.Ct. 665, 45 L.Ed. 979, and Lane v. Watts, 235 U.S. 17, 22, 35 S.Ct. 3, 59 L.Ed. 104. Among cases failing to recognize such a treaty withdrawal, and treating the lands only as later withdrawn when sub jud......
  • United States v. State of Oregon
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • April 1, 1935
    ... ... Knevals, 106 U.S. 360, 368, 369, 1 S.Ct. 336, 27 L.Ed. 201; Lane v. Watts, 234 U.S. 525, 541, 34 S.Ct. 965, 58 L.Ed. 1440; Id., 235 U.S ... ...
  • Pueblo of Jemez v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico
    • October 25, 2018
    ...to pre-existing interests, because the statutory language contains no such limitation. Resp. Br. at 27 (citing Lane v. Watts, 235 U.S. 17, 22, 35 S.Ct. 3, 59 L.Ed. 104 (1914) ). Furthermore, according to the United States, Congress was seeking to provide the Baca heirs with the same rights ......
  • Pueblo of Jemez v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico
    • September 27, 2019
    ...Br. at 72 (quoting Lane v. Watts, 234 U.S. 525, 528-29, 34 S.Ct. 965, 58 L.Ed. 1440 (1914) ; and citing Lane v. Watts (Lane II), 235 U.S. 17, 22, 35 S.Ct. 3, 59 L.Ed. 104 (1914) ).171. The United States argues that, even if the Court views the 1860 grant as merely one factor in a multi-fact......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT