Manuel De Cambra v. Hannah Rogers

• Decision Date: 16 March 1903
• Docket Number: No. 170,170
• Parties: MANUEL S. DE CAMBRA, Plff. in Err. , v. HANNAH ROGERS and Frank J. Rogers
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

189 U.S. 119

23 S.Ct. 519

47 L.Ed. 734

MANUEL S. DE CAMBRA, Plff. in Err.,

v HANNAH ROGERS and Frank J. Rogers.

No. 170.

Argued and submitted February 24, 1903.

Decided March 16, 1903.

On April 28, 1897, Hannah Rogers and Frank J. Rogers, holders of the legal title to a tract of land in Alameda county com1v30menced in the superior court of that county an action in ejectment against Manuel S. De Cambra and others. The defendants answered with a general denial, and, as authorized by the practice in California, De Cambra filed a cross-complaint in equity, alleging that the plaintiffs had obtained the legal title wrongfully and held it in trust for him, and prayed a decree quieting his title to the land. A demurrer to this cross-complaint was sustained, and upon a trial of the action a judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiffs, which judgment was affirmed by the supreme court of California (132 Cal. 502, 60 Pac. 863, 64 Pac. 894), and thereupon this writ of error was sued out.

Mr. J. C. Bates for plaintiff in error.

Mr. Franklin H. Mackey for defendants in error.

Mr. Justice Brewer delivered the opinion of the court:

The only question presented arises on the demurrer to the cross-complaint. That cross-complaint averred that in 1867 De Cabra purchased from one Hewett Steele the premises in controversy, with other adjoining lands, all of which were inclosed with fences and well-known exterior boundaries; that he entered into actual possession thereof, and has ever since continuously resided thereon; that in 1871 he sold an undivided half interest in the tract to Enos J. Rogers, the husband of Hannah and the father of Frank J. Rogers; that at that time the land was supposed to be a portion of a Mexican grant, and was within its exterior boundaries; that on August 10, 1878, the final official survey disclosed that there were more than 3 leagues of land within the exterior boundaries of said grant, and thereupon a part thereof, including the land in controversy, was restored by the United States to the public domain; that De Cambra and Rogers, who were brothers-in-law, agreed upon a division of the land excluded from the grant and restored to the public domain, De Cambra to take one portion, and that the tract in controversy, and Rogers the other; that thereupon they went to the local land office to file their applications for entry; that De Cambra, being unable to read or write, and understanding the English language very imperfectly, trusted to Rogers to prepare the pre-emption papers; that Rogers knowingly and fraudulently prepared the papers so as to make De Cambra an applicant for land upon which there was no dwelling house or other improvement, and...