United States v. Jose Isabel Martinez

Decision Date03 March 1902
Docket NumberNo. 169,169
Citation22 S.Ct. 422,184 U.S. 441,46 L.Ed. 632
PartiesUNITED STATES, Appt. , v. JOSE ISABEL MARTINEZ et al
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

This was a petition, under the 14th section of the court of private land claims act, for a money judgment against the United States for lands within a Spanish land claim, which lands had been patented by the United States to third parties before the Spanish land grant had been acted upon or confirmed.

The original proceeding out of which the present claim for indemnity grew was a suit begun February 28, 1893, by the present appellees, who, with one exception, claimed to be the heirs at law and legal representatives of Juan Jos e Lobato, against the United States, in the court of private land claims, for the confirmation of a grant alleged to have been made to Lobato August 24, 1740, of which juridical possession was given, and the grant ratified and confirmed by the proper authorities June 15, 1744. In their petition it was alleged that the same tract had been previously granted to Cristobal de Torres, but that his grant had been revoked in 1733 and the tract declared to be Crown lands; that from the date of the grant to Lobato in 1740 and for a period of 153 years (down to the time of filing the petition) he and his legal representatives had been in peaceable adverse possession of the same, and that 'there are no adverse holders, possessors, or claimants of or to any portion of said tract.' The suit resulted in a decree in favor of the claimants (appellees) confirming the grant, and finding the title complete and perfect in the claimants, at the date of the cession by the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. The decree fixed the boundaries of the tract as shown in a map annexed to the petition. From this decree no appeal was prosecuted, and becoming final, it was executed by a survey approved by the court, and the land patented to the grantees.

More than six years after the confirmation of the Lobato grant the petitioners filed the present petition, alleging that several parcels of land, amounting to 2,056 acres in the aggregate, had been disposed of, granted, and patented by the United States to certain persons named in an exhibit to the petition; that the lands so granted lay wholly within the boundaries of the Lobato grant as confirmed, and were among the most valuable parts of such grant. The petition concluded with a prayer for judgment against the United States for the value of the lands so patented.

The United States answered, admitting the confirmation of the Lobato grant, and averring that the plaintiffs neglected to make the holders of the patented land parties defendant to the suit as required by law, but that they proceeded to try their cause, obtain a decree of confirmation, which had long since become final; and that by failure to make the patentees parties defendant, and by averring that there were no adverse claimants to any portion of the tract, 'they thereby waived and disclaimed all right, if any they had, to challenge any disposition theretofore made under the laws of the United States to any portion of said grant.'

The petitioners filed a general demurrer to this answer, accompanied by an affidavit to the effect that the plaintiffs, until the survey of said grant, did not and could not know or certainly allege and affirm that the lands granted and disposed of by the United States, as set forth in their petition, were within the exterior limits of their grant, and consequently no allegation with relation thereto was made in their original petition, and that such knowledge only came to the petitioners within the last two years.

The demurrer to the answer was sustained, the case submitted upon an agreed statement of facts, and a judgment rendered against the United States for $2,320.91, for 1,856.73 acres at $1.25 per acre, in accordance with the prayer of the petition,—Justices Sluss and Murray dissenting.

Messrs. Matthew G. Reynolds and John K. Richards, Solicitor General, for appellant.

Messrs. George Hill Howard and Henry M. Earle for appellees.

Mr. Justice Brown delivered the opinion of the court:

This case raises the question whether, after a land grant has been confirmed by the court of private land claims, that court may, after an unexplained delay of over six years, entertain a supplemental petition for the value of certain parcels disposed of and patented by the United States to third parties, before the filing of the original petition.

The following sections of the court of private land claims act (26 Stat. at L. 854, chap. 539) are pertinent in this connection:

'Sec. 6. That it shall and may be lawful for any person . . . claiming lands within the limits of the territory derived by the United States from the Republic of Mexico . . . by virtue of any such Spanish of Mexican grant . . . which . . . have not been confirmed by act of Congress, . . . and which are not already complete and perfect, in every such case to present a petition, in writing, to the said court, etc. . . .

'The petition shall set forth fully the nature of their claims to the lands, . . . the name or names of any person or persons in possession of or claiming the same, or any part thereof, otherwise than by the lease or permission of the petitioner; . . . and a copy of such petition, with a citation to any adverse possessor or claimant, shall, immediately after the filing of the same, be served on such possessor or claimant in the ordinary legal manner of serving such process in the proper state or territory,' etc.

"1/5 '"Sec. 8. That any person or corporation claiming lands in any of the states or territories mentioned in this act under a title derived from the Spanish or Mexican government that was complete and perfect at the date when the United States acquired sovereignty therein, shall have the right (but shall not be bound) to apply to said court in the manner in this act provided for other cases for a confirmation of such title.

* * * * *

'If in any such case a title so claimed to be perfect shall be established and confirmed, such confirmation shall be for so much land only as such perfect title shall be found to cover, always excepting any part of such land that shall have been disposed of by the United States,' etc.

'Sec. 14. That if in any case it shall appear that the lands or any part thereof decreed to any claimant under the provisions of this act shall have been sold or granted by the United States to any other person, such title from the United States to such other person shall remain valid, notwithstanding such decree, and upon proof being made to the satisfaction of said court of such sale or grant, and the value of the lands so sold or granted, such court shall render judgment in favor of such claimant against the United States for the reasonable value of said lands so sold or granted, exclusive of betterments, not exceeding one dollar and twenty-five cents per acre for such lands; and such judgment, when found shall be a charge on the Treasury of the United States.'

Under these sections the holder of a complete and perfect title may resort to either of two remedies: He may bring suit in the local courts upon his...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Wolbol v. Steinhoff
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • November 1, 1917
    ... ... laches. (26 Enc. L. 448; United States v. White, 17 ... F. 565.) Neither naked possession ... Hopkins, ... 143 U.S. 224; U. S. v. Martinez, 184 U.S. 441, 46 ... L.Ed. 632.) Fifteen years having ... ...
  • Richardson v. Ainsa
    • United States
    • Arizona Supreme Court
    • March 27, 1908
    ... ... Mexico and Arizona, and the Congress of the United States ... Astiazaran v. Santa Rita Min. Co., 148 U.S ... S.Ct. 525, 32 L.Ed. 926; United States v. Martinez, ... 184 U.S. 441, 22 S.Ct. 422, 46 L.Ed. 632; United ... San Jose de Sonoita." The grant, at the time the suit ... was ... ...
  • Mariano Sena v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • April 6, 1903
    ...effect are Gildersleeve v. New Mexico Min. Co. 161 U. S. 573, 40 L. ed. 812, 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 663, and United States v. Martinez, 184 U. S. 441, 46 L. ed. 632, 22 Sup. Ct. Rep. 422. There are facts connected with this case which render the doctrine of laches peculiarly applicable. This land......
  • Richardson v. Santiago Ainsa
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • November 14, 1910
    ...been secure in his rights, and could have turned the holders of the homestead patents off his land. United States v. Martinez, 184 U. S. 441, 445, 46 L. ed. 632, 22 Sup. Ct. Rep. 422. The proceeding by the government was a matter over which he had no control, and ought not to affect his rig......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT