Mariano Sena v. American Turquoise Company, No. 73
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | Holmes |
| Citation | 31 S.Ct. 488,220 U.S. 497,55 L.Ed. 559 |
| Parties | MARIANO F. SENA, Plff. in Err., v. AMERICAN TURQUOISE COMPANY |
| Docket Number | No. 73 |
| Decision Date | 01 May 1911 |
v.
AMERICAN TURQUOISE COMPANY.
Page 498
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
Page 499
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...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nuclear Energy Institute, Inc. v. E.P.A., No. 01-1258.
...That is for Congress to determine.'" San Francisco, 310 U.S. at 29-30, Page 1309 60 S.Ct. at 756-57 (quoting Light, 220 U.S. at 537, 31 S.Ct. at 488) (footnotes For all of the foregoing reasons, we reject Nevada's constitutional challenge to the Resolution. We now turn to Nevada's challenge......
-
US v. Gardner, No. CV-N-95-328-DWH.
...its lands precisely as an ordinary individual may deal with his farming property. It may sell or withhold them from sale." Id. at 536, 31 S.Ct. at 488 (quoting from Camfield v. United States, 167 U.S. 518, 524, 17 S.Ct. 864, 866, 42 L.Ed. 260 21. Continuing its analysis, the Court set out t......
-
Granier v. Chagnon, No. 8829.
...of the facts to the jury.’ Citing Beuttell v. Magone, 157 U.S. 154, 15 S.Ct. 566, 39 L.Ed. 654, and Sena v. American Turquoise Co., 220 U.S. 497, 31 S.Ct. 488, 55 L.Ed. 559, as well as Empire State Cattle Co. v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co., supra. See also Bank of Commerce v. United States ......
-
WA Hover & Co. v. Denver & RGWR Co., No. 7171.
...Co. 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 B......
-
Granier v. Chagnon, No. 8829.
...of the facts to the jury.’ Citing Beuttell v. Magone, 157 U.S. 154, 15 S.Ct. 566, 39 L.Ed. 654, and Sena v. American Turquoise Co., 220 U.S. 497, 31 S.Ct. 488, 55 L.Ed. 559, as well as Empire State Cattle Co. v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co., supra. See also Bank of Commerce v. United States ......
-
US v. Gardner, No. CV-N-95-328-DWH.
...its lands precisely as an ordinary individual may deal with his farming property. It may sell or withhold them from sale." Id. at 536, 31 S.Ct. at 488 (quoting from Camfield v. United States, 167 U.S. 518, 524, 17 S.Ct. 864, 866, 42 L.Ed. 260 21. Continuing its analysis, the Court set out t......
-
Nuclear Energy Institute, Inc. v. E.P.A., No. 01-1258.
...That is for Congress to determine.'" San Francisco, 310 U.S. at 29-30, Page 1309 60 S.Ct. at 756-57 (quoting Light, 220 U.S. at 537, 31 S.Ct. at 488) (footnotes For all of the foregoing reasons, we reject Nevada's constitutional challenge to the Resolution. We now turn to Nevada's challenge......
-
American Cyanamid Co. v. Wilson & Toomer Fertilizer Co., No. 5919.
...Co. v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fé Ry. Co., 210 U. S. 1, 28 S. Ct. 607, 52 L. Ed. 931, 15 Ann. Cas. 70; Sena v. American Turquoise Co., 220 U. S. 497, 31 S. Ct. 488, 55 L. Ed. 559; Williams v. Vreeland, 250 U. S. 295, 39 S. Ct. 438, 63 L. Ed. 989, 3 A. L. R. 1038; Birge-Forbes Co. v. Heye, ......