Pueblo de San Juan v. United States, 315.
Decision Date | 18 February 1931 |
Docket Number | No. 315.,315. |
Citation | 47 F.2d 446 |
Parties | PUEBLO DE SAN JUAN v. UNITED STATES. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
Charles Fahy, of Santa Fé, N. M. (R. H. Hanna and Fred E. Wilson, both of Albuquerque, N. M., and Wm. J. Barker, of Santa Fé, N. M., on the brief), for appellant.
George A. H. Fraser, Sp. Asst. to Atty. Gen.
Before PHILLIPS and McDERMOTT, Circuit Judges, and KENNEDY, District Judge.
This is an appeal from a decree of the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico confirming an award of the Pueblo Lands Board to the Pueblo of San Juan under the provisions of Section 6 of the Pueblo Lands Act (43 Stat. pp. 637, 638). The pertinent provisions of such Section 6 are set out in the margin.1
It will be noted that the board is required to find: (1) The area and character of the lands and water rights awarded to the non-Indian claimants in its principal report; (2) whether such lands and water rights could have been recovered by the United States by a suit brought within ten years from the time the non-Indian claimants' adverse possession began or within ten years (the period prescribed by the limitation statute of New Mexico) after such possession began and after such lands came under the sovereignty of the United States; (3) as to the lands and water rights which could have been so recovered, the fair market value thereof, less the value of improvements made therein or placed thereon by the non-Indian claimants; and (4) as to the lands which could have been so recovered, the amount of loss, if any, suffered through the failure of the United States to seasonably prosecute an action therefor.
The board found that there were 17,584.77 acres in the San Juan Pueblo Grant; that the Indian title to 3,499.72 acres and the water rights appurtenant thereto had been extinguished; that 1,020.63 acres thereof could have been recovered for the Indians by a suit seasonably brought by the United States; that $60,758.94 was the value of such lands, exclusive of improvements placed thereon; and that the loss suffered by the Indians was $29,090.53. It awarded compensation to the pueblo in the latter amount.
Counsel for the pueblo contend (1) that an award should have been made for all the lands and water rights as to which the board found the Indian title to have been extinguished, and (2) that the award for the loss of the lands and water rights considered was inadequate.
The theory of the first contention is that it was impossible for the pueblo at any time since the grant, under the laws of Spain, Mexico or the United States, to have lawfully alienated its lands and that, therefore, all of it could have been recovered by the seasonable prosecution of actions by the United States.
There may have been a prior lawful overlapping grant so that the title of the non-Indian claimants was superior to the title of the pueblo. Furthermore, during the time the lands were under the sovereignty of Spain, lawful conveyances could have been made by the pueblo with the approval of the sovereign; and, during the time such lands were under the sovereignty of Mexico, there is strong basis for the proposition that the pueblo had authority to convey without the approval of the sovereign.
The act declares that upon review "the report of the board shall be prima facie evidence of the facts, the values, and the liability therein set forth, subject, however, to be rebutted by competent evidence." 43 Stat. 638, § 6; United States v. Board of National Missions of Presbyterian Church (C. C. A. 10) 37 F.(2d) 272-274.
Since there was a possibility that a portion of the lands, to which the Indian title had been extinguished, could not have been recovered by the seasonable prosecution of a suit or suits by the United States, the burden was upon the pueblo to overcome the findings of the board by competent evidence, and this...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State of New Mexico v. Aamodt
...and that of the 'good faith' white settlers on the other, in terms of priority use, persisted and festered. In Pueblo de San Juan v. United States, 47 F.2d 446 (10th Cir. 1931), cert. denied, 284 U.S. 626, 52 S.Ct. 11, 76 L.Ed. 533 (1931), this Court affirmed the decree of the United States......
-
State v. United States, Civ. No. 3384.
...and textbook writers, will be seen from United States v. Chavez, 290 U.S. 357, 54 S.Ct. 217, 78 L.Ed. 360, and Pueblo De San Juan v. United States, 10 Cir., 47 F.2d 446. Cohen, again in his Handbook on Federal Indian Law, after discussing the incidents of Pueblo Land ownership, states at pa......
-
U.S. v. Trujillo, 85-1895
...how the court could have done otherwise than to confirm and ratify the findings and award made by the board." Pueblo De San Juan v. United States, 47 F.2d 446, 447-48 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 284 U.S. 626, 52 S.Ct. 11, 76 L.Ed. 533 (1931). Because no evidence sufficient to show that the L......