Mariano Sena v. American Turquoise Company

Decision Date01 May 1911
Docket NumberNo. 73,73
Citation31 S.Ct. 488,220 U.S. 497,55 L.Ed. 559
PartiesMARIANO F. SENA, Plff. in Err., v. AMERICAN TURQUOISE COMPANY
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Messrs.

Frank W. Clancy and Harry S. Clancy for plaintiff in error.

Messrs. Matt. G. Reynolds, Thomas B. Harlan, and Stephen B. Davis, Jr., for defendant in error.

Mr. Justice Holmes delivered the opinion of the court:

This is an action of ejectment for about 50 acres in section 21, township 15 north, range 8 east, in the county of Santa Fe, New Mexico, which the defendant holds under mining claims dating from 1885 to 1892, and located under the laws of the United States. It was brought after the plaintiff's failure to establish title, under a Mexican grant, to a large tract of which this land is alleged to be a part, in the court of private land claims, and in this court on appeal. Sena v. United States, 189 U. S. 233, 47 L. ed. 787, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 596. Id. 504, 47 L. ed. 792, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 857. The decree left open the question whether the plaintiff had a perfect or imperfect title, and was without prejudice of further proceedings, as, in case of a perfect title, the statute establishing the court of private land claims did not require a confirmation by that court. Act of March 3, 1891, chap. 539, § 8; 26 Stat. at L. 854, 857, U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, pp. 765, 769; Richardson v. Ainsa, 218 U. S. 289, 54 L. ed. 1044, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 23. The former decision was put on the ground of laches; but in the present suit the plaintiff offered some little additional evidence of acts indicative of possession later than any proved before. Both parties, however, moved that the court should direct a verdict. Beuttell v. Magone, 157 U. S. 154, 39 L. ed. 654, 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 566; Empire State Cattle Co. v. Atchison t. & S. F. R. Co. 210 U. S. 1, 52 L. ed. 931, 28 Sup. Ct. Rep. 607, 15 A. & E. Ann. Cas. 70. The court of first instance was of opinion that the boundaries of the grant under which the plaintiff claims were not proved to include the land in dispute, and directed a verdict for the defendant. The judgment was affirmed by the supreme court of the territory on the ground that the grant did not appear to have been confirmed as required by a Spanish ordinance of October 15, 1752, 2 White's New Recop. 62, 63 [*51], and that the evidence of possession, etc., was too vague to raise a presumption in place of proof. The plaintiff took a writ of error and brings the case here.

The grant under which the plaintiff claims was made to Joseph de Leyba in 1728. Subject to what was said in the former decision (189 U. S. 233, 237, 47 L. ed. 787, 790, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 596), the boundaries on the north and east may be assumed to be established, but the others give rise to the trouble. They are 'on the south by an arroyo called Cuesta del Oregano; on the west by land of Juan Garcia del las Rivas.' To translate these words into things, the plaintiff put in evidence a grant to Miguel Garzia de la Riba of the sitio of the old pueblo the Cienega, dated August 12, 1701, and a grant of the same property from Miguel to his son, Juan Garcia de la Riba, dated March 12, 1704, the latter bounding the property on the east by the Penasco Blanco de las Golondrinas and on the south by the canada of Juana Lopez. He also put in the will of a son of Joseph de Leyba, under whom the plaintiff claims, describing the land granted to his father as bounded on the west with lands of the old Pueblo of the Cienega. Penasco Blanco was shown to be a known natural object. It lies to the north of the north boundary of the Leyba grant, but the plaintiff says that it is to be presumed that the eastern boundary of the Riba...

To continue reading

Request your trial
49 cases
  • US v. Gardner
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Nevada
    • 2 Octubre 1995
    ... ... Upon the American revolution, the original states were deemed to have the ... ...
  • Nuclear Energy Institute, Inc. v. E.P.A.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit
    • 9 Julio 2004
    ... ... disposal poses for the health and welfare of the American people, it is up to Congress — not EPA and not this court ... § 10139(a)(1)(A))). We do, however, part company with NRC when it asserts that NRC's challenged actions ... ...
  • Granier v. Chagnon
    • United States
    • Montana Supreme Court
    • 10 Marzo 1949
    ... ... 154, 15 S.Ct. 566, 39 L.Ed. 654, and ... Sena v. American Turquoise Co., 220 U.S. 497, 31 ... S.Ct ... ...
  • WA Hover & Co. v. Denver & RGWR Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • 21 Febrero 1927
    ...v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fé Ry. Co., 210 U. S. 1, 8 28 S. Ct. 607, 52 L. Ed. 931, 15 Ann. Cas. 70; Sena v. American Turquoise Co., 220 U. S. 497, 501 31 S. Ct. 488, 55 L. Ed. 559; American National Bank v. Miller, 229 U. S. 517, 520 33 S. Ct. 883, 57 L. Ed. 1310; Mead v. Chesbrough Bldg.......
  • 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