Jacob Gardner v. Bonestell
Decision Date | 25 February 1901 |
Docket Number | No. 143,143 |
Citation | 45 L.Ed. 574,180 U.S. 362,21 S.Ct. 399 |
Parties | JACOB GARDNER and Peter Gardner, Plffs. in Err. , v. L. H. BONESTELL, Executor of the Estate of Ebenezer Wormouth, Deceased, Dft. in Err |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
In 1834 Juan Reed applied to and received from the Mexican governor of California a grant of a tract of land. In 1854 his heirs petitioned the commission created by the United States for a confirmation of that grant. It was confirmed, the order therefor being in these words:
'In this case on hearing the proofs and allegations, it is adjudged by the commission that the said claim of the petitioners is valid, and is therefore hereby decreed that the same be confirmed.
'The land of which confirmation is hereby made is the same on which said Juan Reed resided in his lifetime; is known by the name of Corte de Madera del Presidio, is situated in Marin county and bounded as follows, to wit: Commencing from the solar which faces west at a point at the slope and foot of the hills which lie in that direction and on the edge of the forest of redwoods called Corte de Madera del Presidio, and running from thence in a northwardly direction 4,500 varas to an arroyo called Holon where is another forest of redwoods called Corte de Madera de San Pablo; thence by the waters of said arroyo and the bay of San Francisco 10,000 varas to the Roint Taburon, said point serving as a mark and limit; thence running along the borders of said bay and continuing in a westerly direction along the shore of the bay formed by Point Caballos and Point Taburon, 4,700 varas to the north of the canada and the point of the 'sausal' which is near the Estero lying east of the house on said premises which was occupied by said Juan Reed in November, 1835; and thence continuing the measurement from east to west along the last line 800 varas to the place of beginning; containing taining I square league of land, be the same more or less; being the same land described in the testimonial of juridical possession on file in this case, as having been measured to said Juan Reed under a grant of the same to him, to which testimonial and the map therein referred to and constituting a part of the expediente, a traced copy of which is filed in the case, reference is to be had.'
An appeal was taken therefrom to the district court of the United States, and the following order of confirmation was made on January 14, 1856:
No appeal was taken from this order of confirmation, and it, therefore, became final. In 1858, a survey was ordered by the Land Department, and was made by a surveyor, named Mathewson, who surveyed 1 square league as being the full amount of the tract confirmed to the petitioners. The petitioners claimed that their grant was of a tract described by metes and bounds, and not of a given quantity within exterior boundaries, and after some controversy between them and the Land Department the latter recognized their claim, set aside the Mathewson survey, and ordered a new survey. This was made in 1871. It was confirmed by the Land Department, and has never been questioned therein. Thereupon a patent was issued to the petitioners, conveying the tract by metes and bounds as described in the order of the commission and shown by the last survey.
The tract in controversy is outside the limits of both surveys. Prior to the last survey Ebenezer Wormouth, the testator of defendant in error, settled upon the tract in controversy, and thereafter made application to enter the tract as public land of the United States. A contest was had between such testator and one Samuel R. Throckmorton, claiming title from the heirs of Reed, the original grantee, first in the local land office, thence carried by appeal to the General Land Office, and thereafter to the Secretary of the Interior. The right to enter was sustained and a patent issued. Thereafter this action against the plaintiffs in error holding under Throckmorton was instituted in the superior court of the county of Marin, California, which, at first a mere action in ejectment, became by the pleadings subsequently filed a suit in equity to try title. The decree in the trial court was in favor of Wormouth, which was affirmed by the supreme court of the state (125 Cal. 316, 58 Pac. 20), and thereafter this writ of error was sued out.
In the trial court the question of title was submitted to the court and findings of fact made. Among them were the following:
'2d. That one of the questions decided by the United States rigister and receiver, and confirmed by the United States Commissioner of the General Land Office, and by the the said contest of Throckmorton v. Wormouth, the said contest of Throckmorton v. wormouth, mentioned in the 20th paragraph of said cross complaint herein, was a question of fact, namely, the location of the western boundary of the grant made by Governor Figueroa to Juan Reed.
'6th. That the officers of the United States Land Department, to wit, the United States register and receiver, the Commissioner of the General Land Office and the United States Secretary of the Interior, respectively, from the evidence produced before them in said contest of Throckmorton v Wormouth, in denying said application of Throckmorton, did not base their decision upon a question of law alone, but did find and decide as a fact that said Throckmorton was not a purchaser in good faith from Mexican grantees or their assigns.
'7th. This court further finds as follows: That the rancho granted by the governor of California, under the government of Mexico, to Juan Reed, did not include within its exterior limits the land described in the deed from T. B. Deffebach et al. to Julius C. McCeney of February 14, 1871, or any part thereof, except so much thereof as is included in the patent issued on or about the 25th day of February, 1885, by the United States to John J. Reed et al. That the grant mentioned in the first paragraph of said cross complaint did...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Old Dominion Copper Min. & Smelting Co. v. Haverly
... ... Dowman, 176 U.S. 413, 20 S.Ct. 429, 44 L.Ed ... 526; Carter v. Thomson, 65 F. 329; Gardner v ... Bonestell, 180 U.S. 362, 21 S.Ct. 399, 45 L.Ed. 574; ... Quinby v. Conlan, supra; Buena ... ...
-
Ormsby County v. Kearney
... ... Michigan, 188 ... U.S. 505, 23 S.Ct. 390, 47 L.Ed. 563; Gardner v ... Bonestell, 180 U.S. 362, 21 S.Ct. 399, 45 L.Ed. 574; ... Bates & Guild Co. v. Payne, ... ...
-
DiSt v. Tri-State Land Co.
...McGehee, Due Process of Law, 162, 368; Reetz v. Michigan, 188 U. S. 505, 23 Sup. Ct. 390, 47 L. Ed. 563;Gardner v. Bonestell, 180 U. S. 362, 21 Sup. Ct. 399, 45 L. Ed. 574;Bates & Guild Co. v. Payne, 194 U. S. 106, 24 Sup. Ct. 595, 48 L. Ed. 894;People ex rel. Deneen v. Simon, 176 Ill. 165,......
-
People's United States Bank v. Gilson
... ... L.Ed. 175, Johnson v. Drew, 171 U.S. 93, 99, 18 ... Sup.Ct. 800, 43 L.Ed. 88, and Gardner v. Bonestell, ... 180 U.S. 362, 21 Sup.Ct. 399, 45 L.Ed. 574, which apply the ... same rule to ... ...
-
The Property Clause, Article Iv, and Constitutional Structure
...century. See, e.g., Standard Oil, 107 F.2d at 410-11; Barden v. N. Pac. R.R. Co., 154 U.S. 288, 326-27 (1894); Gardner v. Bonestell, 180 U.S. 362, 369-70 (1901); Johnson v. Drew, 171 U.S. 93, 99 (1898); Burfenning, 163 U.S. at 323. For an exception, see Lindsey, 67 U.S. at 558. And even for......