De Haro v. United States

Decision Date01 December 1866
PartiesDE HARO v. UNITED STATES
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

California, in a claim for land, now of immense value, originally presented to the board of land commissioners established by the act of March 3, 1851. The case was thus:

In April, 1844, Ramon and Francisco de Haro presented a petition to the Mexican governor of the province of California for a grant of a tract of land, called the 'Potrero of San Francisco,' situated near the mission of that name. The petitioners were minors, and their petition was accompanied with the consent of their father that they might present it, and also his application to the local alcalde for information as to the condition of the land solicited, and the alcalde's reply thereto. The petition and accompanying papers were referred to the secretary of state for his report thereon. The secretary reported that the land was unoccupied; but, for reasons stated, he was of opinion that a provisional license to occupy it should be given to the petitioners. A decree was accordingly made pursuant to this suggestion, and was followed by the issue and delivery to the petitioners of a formal document, ceding to them the occupation provisionally, subject to certain conditions. The following is a translation of the several papers mentioned:

[Petition for the Grant.]

EXCELLENT SENOR GOVERNOR OF BOTH CALIFORNIAS:

We, Francisco de Haro and Ramon de Haro, in the name of our family, Mexican citizens by birth, and residents of the ex-Mission of San Francisco de Asis, represent to your Excellency, with due submission, that inasmuch as we have to remove the share of cattle appertaining to our deceased mother out of the rancho of the deceased Jose Antonio Sanchez, and as we have in view to tame them, we entreat your Excellency to grant to us in the exercise of your Excellency's powers, a small parcel of land called Potrero de San Francisco, & c., because there is no competent person to do it, according to the annexed sketch that we submit to your Excellency; and as said parcel of land can be inclosed, we intend to place on it the tamed cattle, because of the small extent of the location occupied at present by the cattle of our father, who has given us due permission to petition, as we are under the parental power and control. Therefore, we entreat your Excellency to grant us this benefit, whereby we shall receive favor and grace. We swear not to proceed moved by malice, &c. This memorial has not been written on paper of the corresponding stamp, there not being any here.

RAMON DE HARO,

FRANCISCO DE HARO.

SAN FRANCISCO, April 12, 1844.

[Consent of the Father of the Petitioners.]

I, the undersigned, grant by the present document, to my sons, Francisco and Ramon de Haro, the corresponding assent enabling them (because they are minors) to solicit the Superior Government of the Department the grant of the Potrero of the ex-Mission of San Francisco de Asis, at present lying unoccupied, and represented in the sketch accompanying the petition.

The said Potrero being intended to be (if it should please the Superior authority to grant it) for the benefit of their other brothers as well as themselves, and to answer due ends I give them this document in the aforementioned ex-Mission of San Francisco de Asis, on the 12th day of April, 1844.

FRANCISCO DE HARO.

[Application of the Father of the Petitioners to the local Alcalde for Information as to the Condition of the land solicited.]

TO THE HONORABLE THE ALCALDE OF FIRST NOMINATION OF SAN FRANCISCO:

I, francisco de Haro, a resident of this jurisdiction, in the name of my sons, Francisco and Ramon, formally appear and say that my sons aforementioned have received my assent to solicit of the Superior Government of the Department the grant of the Potrero that lies opposite the ex-Mission of San Francisco de Asis, which stands unoccupied, and the inclosures of which are thrown down, and lying on the ground; and inasmuch as I wish to remove the obstacles that may obstruct the speedy despatch of said petition, and since it must be referred thence to this place for report and information, and I want to obviate this delay, I therefore apply to you, in order that you be pleased to report as you may think convenient, in the subject of my solicitation.

Therefore, I entreat you to proceed in this matter according to right, and to direct this memorial, written on common paper, there not being here any of the corresponding stamped. Thus I swear, &c.

FRANCISCO DE HARO.

SAN FRANCISCO, April 13th, 1844

[Reply of the local Alcalde to the Application for Information.]

SAN FRANCISCO DE ASIS, April 13th, 1844.

In consideration of the reasons presented by the party who solicits, I proceed to report about the location in request, declaring that up to this day there are no claimants of any kind, and it is not occupied by any community or private individual.

G. HINKLEY.

[Order of Governor referring Petition and accompanying Papers to the Secretary of State to report thereon.]

MONTEREY, April 29th, 1844.

Let the secretary of state report on the same, and take the necessary information.

MICHELTOREAN.

[The Report of the Secretary.]

MONTEREY, April 29th, 1844.

EXCELLENT SENOR GOVERNOR:

The Mission of San Francisco no longer holds property of any kind, and consequently the Potrero (or inclosed place for keeping horses) in request in lying unoccupied, as the soliciting parties show by means of a report proceeding from the respective judge; and inasmuch as there are to be assigned to said establishment, its corporation or common land (ejidos1), I am of opinion that in the meanwhile the parties might occupy the plot of land, by virtue of a provisional license of your Excellency, because no prejudice is caused thereby to the community, to any private individual. Your Excellency's own decision will doubtless be the most proper one.

MANUEL JIMENO.

MONTEREY, April 30th, 1844.

In conformity.

MICHELTORENA.

[The Decree of the Governor upon the Petition and Secretary's Report.]

MONTEREY, April 30th, 1844.

After examining the petition at the head of this proceeding, the preceding reports, and whatever else was thought to the purpose, in conformity with the laws and regulations on the subject, I declare Francisco and Ramon de Haro empowered to occupy provisionally the piece of land called Potrero de San Francisco, to the extent of half a square league, the boundaries to be the extremities of the mouth of the Potrero, and the range of hillocks or highlands environing it. Let the corresponding patent be issued; let it be duly entered, and let this information be communicated to the person in charge of said establishment.

[The Document issued by the Governor, and delivered to the petitioners pursuant to the above decree.]

MANUEL MICHELTORENA, GENERAL OF BRIGADE IN THE MEXICAN ARMY, ADJUTANT-GENERAL OF THE STAFF OF THE SAME, COMMANDANT-GENERAL, GOVERNOR AND INSPECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CALIFORNIA:

Whereas, francisco and Ramon de Haro have solicited the grant of the Potrero de San Francisco, so called, from the mouth of the estuaries, together with the high land surrounding it, all the necessary investigations having been made according as the laws and regulations in the matter prescribed, by virtue of the authority in me vested, I have thought proper, in the name of the Mexican nation, to grant to them the occupation of the aforementioned Potrero, subject to the mensuration to be made of the corporation or common lands (ejidos) for the establishment of San Francisco, and under the following conditions:2

1st. They shall have no power, under any consideration, to sell or alienate it to the detriment of any of the proprietors of the establishment of San Francisco.

2d. They shall not obstruct the paths, roads, and servitudes, using it for culture and cattle they intend to introduce on it, but within a year at the most it must be occupied.

3d. The parcel of land to which reference is made is of half a square league, and if they should transgress any of these conditions, they shall lose their right to this provisional grant, which is delivered to the parties concerned for their security, and other ends.

Given in Monterey, on the first day of May, 1844.

MANUEL MICHELTORENA.

MANUEL JIMENO.

Under the last document the De Haros went into possession of the land, and occupied if for the pasturage of horses and cattle until their death, which occurred in May, 1846.3 The land was inclosed on three sides by water, and a wall had been erected by the priests of the mission on the fourth side. This wall had gone to ruin, and the De Haros, after obtaining their concession, repaired it. The land was not a fertile tract, and was only fit for pasturage. The father of the De Haros succeeded to whatever interest they possessed in the property at their death, and he occupied the land afterwards in a similar manner; that is, for the pasturage of horses and cattle, until his death, which took place in 1849. His successors in interest were his children, six girls and one son, all minors at the time. From these children the property passed into the hands of numerous American citizens, for whose benefit, after our conquest, the claim was presented for confirmation to the board of land commissioners, established by the act of March, 1851, to settle private land-claims in California.

When the claim was pending before the land commissioners, two papers additional to those set out at pages 600-604 were produced and given in evidence; one of them purporting to be a grant in fee simple of the land to the De Haros, signed by Governor Micheltorena, bearing date May 24, 1844, and the other purporting to be a grant of a similar nature, signed by the same officer September 18, 1844. The signature to both was genuine, but it was added after the cession of the country to the United States. The instruments were antedated, but by whom they were prepared was not shown.

The...

To continue reading

Request your trial
34 cases
  • Rupli v. South Mountain Heritage Soc'y, Inc.
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • December 22, 2011
    ...Inc., 31 Md.App. 704, 705, 358 A.2d 258 (1976) (quoting with approval the above language from Zimmerman ); De Haro v. United States, 72 U.S. 599, 627, 5 Wall. 599, 18 L.Ed. 681 (1867) (a license is “limited to the original parties to it”) (quoted in Condry v. Laurie, 184 Md. 317, 320, 41 A.......
  • Chew v. First Presbyterian Church of Wilmington, Del., Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Delaware
    • August 4, 1916
    ... ... v. FIRST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF WILMINGTON, DEL., Inc., et al. No. 344. United States District Court, D. Delaware. August 4, 1916 ... [237 F. 220] ... [Copyrighted Material ... If not earlier ended it terminates with ... the death of the licensee. In De Haro v. United States, 5 ... Wall. 599, 627 (18 L.Ed. 681), the court said: ... 'There ... ...
  • Ridgely Condominium Ass'n, Inc. v. Smyrnioudis
    • United States
    • Maryland Court of Appeals
    • September 1, 1995
    ...to do some particular act or series of acts on land without possessing any estate or interest therein. In De Haro v. United States, 5 Wall. 599, 627, 18 L.Ed. 681, 688, Justice Davis spoke of the incidents of a license as follows: "It is an authority to do a lawful act, which, without it, w......
  • Rau v. Collins
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • February 2, 2006
    ...to the original parties to it.' Zimmerman v. Summers, 24 Md.App. 100, 110, 330 A.2d 722 (1975) (quoting De Haro v. United States, 72 U.S. (5 Wall.) 599, 627, 18 L.Ed. 681 (1866)). A license is also revocable at the pleasure of the party making it, and is instantly revoked upon sale of the l......
  • 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