The United States, Appellants v. Andres Castillero
| Decision Date | 01 December 1859 |
| Citation | 16 L.Ed. 498,23 How. 464,64 U.S. 464 |
| Parties | THE UNITED STATES, APPELLANTS, v. ANDRES CASTILLERO |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
THIS was an appeal from the District Court of the United States for the southern district of California.
The case is stated in the opinion of the court.
The claim was confirmed by the board of commissioners, and likewise by the District Court. The United States appealed to this court, where it was argued by Mr. Stanton for the appellants.
This is an appeal from a decree of the District Court of the United States for the southern district of California, affirming a decree of the commissioners appointed under the act of the third of March, 1851, to ascertain and settle private land claims.
Pursuant to the eighth section of that act, the appellee in this case presented his petition to the commissioners, claiming title to the island of Santa Cruz, situated in the county of Santa Barbara, in the State of California, by virtue of an original grant from Governor Alvarado. All of the documentary evidences of title produced in the case are dulycertified copies of originals found in the Mexican archives, as appears by the certificate of the surveyor general, which makes a part of the record. They consist of a special dispatch from the Minister of the Interior of the Republic of Mexico, addressed to Governor Alvarado; the petition of the claimant to the same, and the original grant to the petitioner, which purports to be signed by the Governor, and to be duly countersigned by the secretary of the Department. Certain other documents were also introduced, to which it will be necessary to refer, as a part of the proceedings that led to the grant.
Islands situated on the coast, it seems, were never granted by the Governors of California or any of her authorities, under the colonization law of 1824, or the regulations of 1828. From all that has been exhibited in cases of this description, the better opinion is, that the power to grant the lands of the islands was neither claimed nor exercised by the authorities of the Department prior to the twentieth day of July, 1838, as was satisfactorily shown in one or more cases heretofore considered and decided by this court.
On that day, the Minister of the Interior, by the order of the Mexican President, addressed a communication to Governor Alvarado, authorizing him, in concurrence with the Departmental Assembly, to grant and distribute the lands of the desert islands adjacent to that Department to the citizens of the nation who might solicit the same. That dispatch bears date at a period when the President was in the exercise of extraordinary powers, and was issued, as appears by its recitals, with a view to promote the settlement of the unoccupied islands on the coast, and to prevent those exposed positions from becoming places of rendezvous and shelter for foreign adventurers, who might desire to invade that remote Department. Grants made by the Governor, under the power conferred by that dispatch, without the concurrence of the Departmental Assembly, were simply void, for the reason that the power, being a special one, could only be exercised in the manner therein prescribed. It was so held by this court in United States v. Osio, decided at the present term, and we are satisfied that the decision was correct.
But the grant in this case was not made under the general authority conferred by that dispatch. In addition to what was exhibited in the former case, it now appears that another dispatch of a special character was addressed by the same Cabinet Minister to the Governor on the same day. Like the other, it bears date at the city of Mexico, on the twentieth day of July, 1838, and is signed by the Minister of the Interior. By the terms of the communication, the Governor is informed that the President, regarding the services rendered by this claimant to the nation and to that Department as worthy of great consideration and full recompense, has directed the Minister to recommend strongly to the Governor and the Departmental Assembly that one of the islands, such as the claimant might select, near where he ought to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. ex rel. Chunie v. Ringrose
...and the successor-in-interest to the Carrillos, presented claims which were upheld by the courts. See United States v. Castillero, 64 U.S. (23 How.) 464, 16 L.Ed. 498 (1860); Manuelo Carrillo de Jones v. United States (S.D.Cal., Dec.Term.1855) (unpublished). The Chumash argue that even if t......
-
Joel Parker Whitney v. United States
...from the supreme Executive for making such a grant. If that were shown, we might say, following the case of United States v. Castillero, 23 How. 464, 16 L. ed. 498, the other conditions therein mentioned being fulfilled, that the grant was a valid one, and ought to have been confirmed by th......
-
The United States v. Andres Castillero Andres Castillero v. the United States
...must exercise it in the manner required by law, and not having done so, his acts are void. U. S. vs. Osio, 23 How., p. 283; U. S. vs. Castillero, 23 How., p. 466. VIII. Conduct of claimant throughout shows that he knew that he had no title as is plainly to be inferred from the fact that in ......