The United States, Appellants v. Henry Teschmaker, Joseph Thompson, George Howard, and Julius Rose

• Citation: 63 U.S. 392,22 How. 392,16 L.Ed. 353
• Parties: THE UNITED STATES, APPELLANTS, v. HENRY F. TESCHMAKER, JOSEPH P. THOMPSON, GEORGE H. HOWARD, AND JULIUS K. ROSE
• Decision Date: 01 December 1859
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

63 U.S. 392

22 How. 392

16 L.Ed. 353

THE UNITED STATES, APPELLANTS, v. HENRY F. TESCHMAKER, JOSEPH P. THOMPSON, GEORGE H.

HOWARD, AND JULIUS K. ROSE.

December Term, 1859

THIS was an appeal from the District Court of the United States for the northern district of California.

The state of the title and a brief summary of the evidence are given in the opinion of the court.

It was argued by the Attorney General and Mr. Stanton for the United States, and by Mr. Gillet for the appellees.

The counsel for the United States stated the case, both as to the nature of the title and the evidence to support it, and then summed up the whole as follows:

Claimant derives title through Salvador and Juan Antonio Vallejo.

October 11, 1838.—Salvador Vallejo and Juan Antonio Vallejo petition their brother, M. G. Vallejo, who is styled by them 'commandante general and director of colonization of this frontier,' to grant eight leagues to each of them.

March 15, 1839.—Permission to occupy they lands they petitioned for, given by M. G. Vallejo.

September 5, 1844.—Grant by Micheltorena of sixteen leagues, more or less—'La Laguna de Lup-Yomi.' Micheltorena's name is signed to the grant. No attestation by secretary, but at the foot is this:

'Note has been made of this decree in the proper book, on folio 4. In the absence of the commandante,

'FRANC'O C. ARCE.'

Salvador Vallejo testifies that he brother got leave to occupy the land from another brother. Immediately after this permission was obtained, they stocked land with horses, cattle, and hogs. Afterwards, applied to the Governor for a title; it was sent him (S. Vallejo) by a courier. Swears that a map produced is true, but don't know if it was presented to the Governor when title was asked for. Does not say that he credited the Government with $2,500, or any other sum, out of his pay.

Juan Castenada knows the ranch was granted to the two Vallejos about 1844 or 1845, and they proceeded to occupy the land immediately after the grant, namely, in 1844 or 1845; yet he admits he knows nothing about the execution of the paper, and never was on the place in his life! This swift witness testifies, without hesitation, to the handwriting of all the Vallejos, of Micheltorena, and of Arce, being all the names on all the papers.

William D. M. Howard testifies to handwriting, of Vallejo, Micheltorena, and Arce.

Salvador Vallejo (called again) testifies that he stocked the farm and built houses, &c., on land in 1842 or 1843, and solicited title from the Governor in 1843 or 1844; applied to Alcalde Jos e de la Rosa for judicial possession. Rosa was afraid of Indians. When asked what the houses cost, he answered, 'A great deal of meat and spunk.'

Jos e de la Rosa was appointed alcalde June 22, 1845; June 25, was called on by Salvador Vallejo to give judicial possession of Lup-Yomi; did not do so, merely because 'there was a large revolution among the Indians,' which continued until the middle of August; nobody killed.

Jos e Ramon Carillo testifies that the boundaries of the ranch were natural, mountain and lake; occupied by stock in 1842 or 1843.

This constitutes the whole of the evidence. It will be seen that the grant, if made at all, was made without any previous petition, investigation, reference, or report; no map; no order of concession; no registry. Arce's certificate, (or the certificate with his name to it,) that note had been taken of this title in the proper book, is false. The proper book is here, and it contains no such thing. There is not a vestige or trace of this title, or anything like it, to be found among all the records of the Department.

This title was never produced, nor its existence publicly asserted, in any way whatever, before the 25th August, 1852, when the deed from Salvador Vallejo to the claimants was acknowledged before a notary. The deed from Juan to Salvador Vallejo is dated the 30th of December, 1849, but it was not acknowledged or recorded; nor does it appear ever to have been seen by anybody but the parties.

Salvador Vallejo and Carillo, their brother-in-law, swear that there was a sort of possession in 1842 or 1843, with some improvements, which, the former witness says, cost a great deal of meat and spunk. But they do not say, and there is no reason to believe, that the title now set up was exhibited, or the land claimed under it. Juan Castenada says the possession was not taken until after the grant in 1844 or 1845.

1. The grant is illegal, for want of a petition, map, inquiry, &c.

2. It is not proved, because a grant produced from the private custody of the claimant, without any record of it among the archives, is no grant at all.

3. It is false, forged, fabricated.

If it had been really made by the Governor at the time it bears date, why was it not recorded? Why was the false note of Arce placed at the foot of it?

The bad character of the Vallejos, as well as of their principal witnesses, renders it extremely probable that all the papers, including the petition for license to occupy, the license itself, and the pretended grant from the Governor, are sheer fabrications, fraudulently got up long after the change of Government.

The chief of the Vallejos (General Mariano) was a professional witness, until his credit ran down so low that he was no longer worth calling. In the case of Luco v. the United States, it was proved that he had forged a grant; and the claim under it was rejected, on that ground alone.

Juan Castenada is a well-known professional witness. So is Francisco Arce, who falsely certifies that this grant was recorded in the proper book.

The grant is dated in September, 1844. That was the very time at which the Vallejos were banding themselves and their followers against Micheltorena, to drive him from the country, and he knew it. It is not probable that he was making grants of valuable land to them at such a time.

Mr. Gillet, for the appellees, considered the following positions to be established by the evidence in the case:

I. A grant was made by Governor Micheltorena to Salvador and Juan A. Vallejo, on the 5th of September, 1844, for the premises in question.

II. The grantees settled upon and occupied the land granted.

III. Judicial possession was not given, because the magistrate applied to was afraid of the Indians.

IV. The United States offered no evidence in this case on any point, by way of contradiction or explanation, or otherwise, but left that of the claimants wholly unquestioned.

Under such circumstances, where the claimants made distinct proof of a fact, if they swore but a single witness to prove it, they had a clear right to consider such fact sufficiently proved, and this court must so consider it.

V. No objection was raised before the board, except that the conditions subsequent had not been performed, and that the localities and boundaries were not given with sufficient definiteness, and these were removed by testimony taken in the District Court.

Each of these positions was sustained by reference to the evidence, after which Mr. Gillet proceeded to divide his argument into several points, of which only two will be reported, as being those upon which the decision of the court turned:

VI. By the laws, usages, and customs of Mexico, a grant is valid, whether the usual preliminary formalities were observed or not.

The act of 1851, (9 U. S. L., 633, sec. 1,) under which these proceedings were had, provides that the board and courts shall be 'governed by the treaty of Guadalupe IIidalgo, the law of nations, the laws, usages, and customs of the Government, from which the claim is derived, the principles of equity, and the decisions of the Supreme Court, as far as they are applicable.'

The grantees' rights are the same under the treaty and the laws of nations. Whatever rights they had, whether perfect or imperfect, full and complete or otherwise, are protected under both.

In equity, all rights, whether legal and perfect, or equitable and imperfect, are protected, and can be enforced. Congress declared that those having rights of any kind should have all the advantages that a court of equity could decree them. The rules applied in equity cases should apply in these. It is a well-settled rule that a court of equity cannot apply its powers to confirm or enforce a forfeiture, while there is another which requires it to exert them, whenever practicable, to prevent forfeitures, and to set them aside, and to relieve against them in all proper cases.

In these land cases, except where the title is a strictly legal one, the whole case is an equitable one, and the court deals exclusively in equitable principles, and enforces them. Every right which is not strictly legal is equitable, and its extent is immaterial.

The claimant shows that he has received some sort of title from the Government, and calls upon the courts, under the law of 1851, to confirm it. Here he is met by a claim of forfeiture, and, in the exercise of equity powers, the court is requested to enforce it. The law is too well settled that this cannot be done, to require the citation of authorities.

In the present case, the grant cannot be questioned. But it is objected that there were formalities usually observed which were omitted. If these were required by positive law to confer a legal title, they are not required to create an equitable one. If these had been observed, the Assembly having confirmed, the title would have been a legal title, and beyond the control of the Government, except where a third party had secured rights by denouncement for non-performance of conditions. In this case, the proof shows that everything has been done that was required by the strictest practice, if we except the presentation of a petition, &c. But there is no law declaring even the legal title void, if there was no petition; much less can it be void in equity. Something was done, and a title was given. This clearly creates an equitable right. The party...