San Lorenzo Title and Improvement Company v City Mortgage Company

• Docket Number: Case No. 55
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals
• Date: 24 March 1932

United States, Court of Civil Appeals of Texas.

(Pelphrey, C.J.; Jones, Caldwell, Special Associate Judges).

Case No. 55

San Lorenzo Title & Improvement Co.

and

City Mortgage Co.

The Same

and

Clardy et Al.

The Same

and

Caples et Al.

Territory — Cession — Distinguished from Fixing of Boundaries — Creation of Private Title in the Territory After the Fixing of Boundaries.

Treaties — Constitutional Limitations — Procedure by Boundary Commission Instead of Cession.

Treaties — Preparatory Work — As Element of Interpretation.

Treaties — Interpretation of — Leaning to Construction which Makes Treaty Legal rather than Illegal — Constitutional Limitations.

Territory — Boundaries — Fixing of Boundaries as Distinguished from Cession of Territory — Nature of Possession of Territory After the Conclusion of the Treaty which Lays Down that the Territory Belongs to the Other State — Effect of Title Created with Regard to Land in the Territory in Question — Nature of Findings of Boundary Commission.

Held: In San Lorenzo Title & Improvement Co. v. Clardy et Al., that the judgment should be affirmed. The pleadings disclosed that the Constitution of Mexico prevented a cession of territory by its government. A construction that makes a treaty legal is to be preferred to one that makes it illegal. In accordance with this principle, and in cognisance of the diplomatic correspondence relating to the Treaty of 1905, it was concluded that the purpose of the Treaty was a readjustment of the boundary line and that it was not intended to operate as a cession of territory. Where territory is ceded, private property rights acquired prior to the cession are protected by the new sovereign. Where a disputed boundary line is finally ascertained or adjusted by agreement, however, grants made by a sovereign beyond the boundary are void, whether or not the sovereign had possession: Coffee v. GroverUNK, 123 U.S. 1; Kenedy Pasture Co. v. Texas, III Texas 200. In such a case, the grants fail simply because of a want of title in the grantor. A de facto possession cannot supply the title. Consequently, no rights could arise out of the grant by Mexico unless it was protected by Article 4 of the Treaty of 1905 relating to the protection of property rights. This provision, however, was intended only to protect persons having existing property rights, and their successors, and not those who acquired grants subsequently to the Treaty. Even if it were conceded that the Treaty was one of cession, the de...