USA > California > History of California, Volume VI > Part 64
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37 | Part 38 | Part 39 | Part 40 | Part 41 | Part 42 | Part 43 | Part 44 | Part 45 | Part 46 | Part 47 | Part 48 | Part 49 | Part 50 | Part 51 | Part 52 | Part 53 | Part 54 | Part 55 | Part 56 | Part 57 | Part 58 | Part 59 | Part 60 | Part 61 | Part 62 | Part 63 | Part 64 | Part 65 | Part 66 | Part 67 | Part 68 | Part 69 | Part 70 | Part 71 | Part 72 | Part 73 | Part 74 | Part 75 | Part 76 | Part 77 | Part 78 | Part 79 | Part 80 | Part 81 | Part 82 | Part 83 | Part 84 | Part 85 | Part 86 | Part 87
Gonzalez, S. Antonio, Sta Cruz, 336, conf. by all the courts on a grant of '33. 22 Howard, 161. This was a case in which the grantee of about 4 1., between well-defined boundaries, seems to have got only & 1., by an error in the grant following a blundering estimate of width in the original diseño. Possibly this was remedied in the final survey.
Haro, Potrero, S. F., 101, 613, conf. by l. c. on grants of '44, but rej. by d. c. on proof that the grants were fraudulent. There was, however, a gen- uine license to occupy-the regular grant being withheld because the mission ejidos might include this land-followed by occupation; and on this as an equitable title 7 able attorneys before the s. c. in '66 strove to have the cl. conf .; but it was rej., the previous frauds doubtless having an influence, on the purely legal ground that the license was not a grant. 5 Wallace, 599. After this decision lessees under the Haro title refused to pay rent, and claimed ownership as squatters or settlers on govt land, or city lands by the Van Ness ordinance and acts of congress. Owners under the Haro title claimed the land on the same grounds as their opponents, having been them- selves the occupants, squatters, or settlers through their lessees; but after a series of suits they were defeated in '78.
Hartnell, Todos Santos, Sta B., and Cosumnes, Sac., 22S, conf. by all the courts, 1 Hoff. 207; 22 Howard, 286; but the Cosumnes el. was cut down from 11 to 6 1. because the others was for 5 1. and only 11 1. in all could be granted to one man. H.'s rancho of Alisal, 2 1., was not deducted because it was pur- chased, not granted.
554
MEXICAN LAND TITLES.
list than the various classes of fraudulent claims. Of the famous cases the claim of Andrés Castillero for
Iturbide, 400 1., 281, rej. by l. c., and as notice of appeal was not filed in time, the merits of the case were never considered by the d. c. and s. c., though it was implied that it might have merits. 1 Hoff. 273; 22 Howard, 290. Land was Ist granted to I. in Texas '22; in '35 his heirs were allowed to locate the grant in N. Mex. or Cal .; in '41 it was decreed that it should be in Cal .; and in '45 the gov. was ordered to grant the land as selected by Salva- dor I. The latter, however, was not able to come to Cal. till '51. Probably all this imposed no obligations whatever on the U. S.
Larkin, Boga, Butte, 129, conf., as was the adjoining cl. of Fernandez (no. 109). In a boundary dispute between these 2 conf. and patented grants the earlier grant with junior patent prevailed against the later grant and senior patent; but on the ground that the former was not purely a floating grant. Otherwise, in the case of 2 floating grants, the date of the patent was decisive. 18 Wallace, 255.
Larkin, Jimeno rancho, Colusa and Yuba, 131, conf. by all the courts on grant of '44 to Jimeno. This case settled several minor points; that area not in grant may be learned from other doc. of the expediente; that evid. of fraud not offered in d. c. will not be received in s. c .; that grants to civil and mil. employés are valid; and that absence of the usual conditions do not invali- date the grant. Justice Campbell dissented from the final conf., believing that this cl. was a 'put-up job' of Larkin, Jimeno, and Micheltorena in '46 or later. 18 Howard, 557; 1 Hoff. 41, 49, 68, 72.
Limantour, 4 sq. 1. in S. F. (all south of Cal. st), also Alcatraz and Yerba Buena isl., the Farallones, and Pt Tiburon, 548-9, cl. filed in Feb. '53; conf. by l. c. in '56 on grants of Feb. and Dec. '43, approval of the Mex. govt in '43-4, an expediente found in the Mont. archives in '53 by Vicente P. Gomez, other corresp. and doc. evidence, and parol testimony of many individuals. L. claimed to have received the land in return for aid furnished to the gov., and the fact that he did furnish such aid gave plausibility to his claim, except in respect of its extent; but this extent, and especially the fact that L.'s cl. to 5 other grants aggregating nearly a million acres (no. 715, 780-1, 783-4), being rej. by the l. c. had been abandoned, were sufficient to excite more than suspicion. The conf. caused great excitement in S. F. '56-8, on account of the immense interests involved. Though many able lawyers pro- nounced the claim fraudulent or illegal, many lot-owners bought the title for security; an opposing organization suspended its efforts on receiving quit- claim deeds from L., and John S. Hittell published a pamphlet in '57, in which, giving an excellent account of the case, he concluded that the cl. was genuine, and that its conf. would be best for the citizens. Before Judge Hoffman in the d. c. the cl. was fully investigated in '58 and finally rejected on the ground that the grants, expedientes, and most of the doc. were for- geries or antedated, and much of the other testimony perjury. 1 Hoff. 389-451. The exposure was so complete that L. abandoned the cl. and deemed himself lucky to escape from the country. Some of his accomplices and tools had turned against him. The decisive point was the discovery that the seals on all the L. grants were counterfeit; but without this and other positive proof, I think the fraud would have been fully established and the claim rejected on the clear circumstantial evidence to be drawn from numerous irregularities, inconsistencies, improbabilities, and falsehoods con- nected with the proceedings and evidence. William C. Jones always main- tained that no competent lawyer ever did or could question the fraudulent nature of the claim; and H. W. Halleck, that the grant if genuine would be held illegal, since the gov. could not thus grant to a single individual nearly all the pueblo lands without the consent or knowledge of the municipal au- thorities. It is probable that L. really got a grant of a small tract at S. F., which has no practical bearing on the case, except that it may in a few in-
555
NEW ALMADEN.
the New Almaden quicksilver mine was probably the most important and complicated. In magnitude of
stances mitigate the charge of perjury against some individuals. Of course but the barest outline of this cause celebra can be given here, and I cannot even present its bibliography.
Limantour, Ciénega del Gavilan, Mont., 782, rej. by l. c. but conf. by d. c. on a grant of '43 to Antonio Chaves; and I think the conf. was final. This was the only one of the Limantour cl. that became valid, but it was doubtless fraudulent like the rest, bearing the forged seal, and it is under- stood that the U. S. officials knew this fact before it was too late. The holder under L. claiming to have bought in good faith, and adopting a liberal policy with squatters, was enabled to obtain his patent.
Little, 5 1. in Yolo, 807, rej. by d. c. on Sutter gen: title, q. v. Most of these cl. were conf. by the d. c., though finally rej. by s. c .; but in this case the grant was fraudulently antedated by Sutter in '50.
Luco, Ulpinos, Solano, 813; rej. in all the courts on a grant of a sobrante, some 50 1., to José de la Rosa in '45. This was the last case presented to the 1. c., in '54, after the term had expired, by a special act of congress. It rested on doc. deposited in the arch. in '53 and on oral testimony. It was one of the most carefully prepared of the crooked cases, and did space permit might be profitably reviewed somewhat at length. The claim was rej. as fraudulent throughout, Pio Pico's signature and the govt seal being forgeries, most of the doc. spurious, and testimony in support of Rosa's claim and occupancy for the most part perjury. 1 Hoff. 345; 23 Howard, 515.
Marchina, 1 1. in S. F., granted in '44 to Fernando M. in payment for ser- vices to the army. Not presented to l. c. or courts; but pub. in a pamphlet at S. F. '65, perhaps for the discipline of lot-owners.
Morehead, Carmel, Sac., 89, rej. in l. c., conf. d. c., and finally rej. in s. c., the court refusing to reopen the case for new evidence in '61. 1 Black, 227; Id. 488. Wm Knight, the grantee, had a Sutter gen. title; but he had also a grant from Gov. Pico of '46. The absence of proper 'record evi- dence' was deemed to justify strict ruling and close scrutiny of secondary evid. which was largely of a suspicious nature, tending to show the doc. to be fraudulent. J. Wayne dissented from the decision, deeming it 'a severer exclusion of a right of prop. in land secured by treaty than has hitherto been adjudged by this court in any case from Cal.'
Murphy, Pastoria de las Borregas, Sta Clara, 90, conf. on grant of '42 to Estrada; as was another part of the rancho to Castro on the same grant (no. 257). M. held under a deed from C .; and a claim of the Estradas, who disputed the validity of C.'s deed, was lost in Cal. s. c. (19 Cal. 278), because it had not been presented to the 1. c., the merits not being considered. This ruling is not clear to me on the theory that the U. S. patent was a quitclaim without prejudice to the rights of 3 1 parties.
Noé, Isl. in Sac., 294, rej. by l. c., conf. d. c., and rej. s. c. 1 Hoff. 162; 23 Howard, 312. This was a grant to Elwell for services in '41, and was the Ist cl. rejected for non-fulfilment of conditions of occupation, etc., amounting as was held to a virtual abandonment until the change of govt made the cl. valuable. The distinction between this and other cases decided the other way is vague, but of course the line must be drawn somewhere.
Olvera, Cuyamaca, S. Diego, 375; rej. l. c., conf. d. c. '58. Not surveyed till '70, and the survey rejected in "73, and a new one ordered which was to exclude the Julian mines on the N.
Osio, Angel Isl., S. F., 18, conf. by l. c. and d. c. on a grant of '39 under an order from Mex. of '38. It was rej. by the s. c., because the grant had not been made as ordered 'with concurrence of the diputacion.' The grant and testimony were regarded as suspicious, and not less so because of the desirability of the isl. to the U. S .; therefore strict compliance with formali- ties was insisted on. 23 Howard, 293; 1 Hoff. 100.
536
MEXICAN LAND TITLES.
interests involved, and bulk of record, this case before the district court was deemed second to none decided
Pacheco, Arroyo de las Nueces, Contra Costa, 168, conf. by all the courts. In this case as in that of Gonzalez (336) there was a blunder of '2 sq. l.' for '2 1. sq.' in the grant; but in this case the error was corrected in d. c. and s. c. 22 Howard, 225.
Pacheco, Bolsa de S. Felipe, Mont., 65, conf. by all the courts as one of the few perfect titles, juridical possession under a grant of '40. The d. c. reduced the cl. to 1 1. because 'dos ' had been written over an erasure of 'uno;' but the s. c. raised it to 2 1. because the change had been made at the time of the grant, or before possession. 1 Wallace, 282.
Palmer, Pt Lobos, S. F., 515, rej. by all the courts as fraudulent or ante- dated, on a grant of '46. The fact that Gov. Pico was not at Los Ang. on the date the grant purported to be signed there seems to have been the entering wedge to show the fraud. These late grants were naturally regarded with much suspicion, and though there was some doc. and oral testimony in favor of the Diaz grant, yet suspicious circumstances were abundant. 1 Hoff. 249; 24 Howard, 125. There seems to have been another cl. to this land, not pre- sented to the l. c., on a grant of '45 to Joaq. Piña.
Pastor, Milpitas, Mont., 305, conf. by l. c. '53 and by d. c. '60 on a grant of '38 to an Ind. There were many and complicated legal proceedings be- sides. Apparently the grant was fraudulent, purporting to be signed by Alvarado at S. Antonio when he was really far away in the south, and as constitutional gov., which he was not till the next year; and worse yet, the survey was located without reference to the original bounds, and the area in- creased from 12,000 to 30,000 acres to include the lands of some ICO settlers. Luco, of Ulpinos grant fame, was the owner. In "76-7 J. F. Stuart in behalf of the settlers was engaged in desperate efforts to have this fraud exposed and the wrong redressed, but without final success, so far as is shown by the incomplete records within my reach.
Peralta, S. Antonio, Alameda, 4, 273-4, conf. by all the courts, on grant of '20 to Luis P., to sons of the grantee. 19 Howard, 343. This grant covered the sites of Berkeley, Oakland, and Alaineda, representing in later years many millions in value. Don Luis in '42 divided the land among his four sons, and in his will of '51 confirmed the division. His four daughters were ignored, and this caused much litigation in later times on the famous 'sisters' title.' If the grant of '20 gave a 'perfect' title, all the heirs of Luis had a valid claim; but it was held by the s. c. (13 Wallace, 480) in '71 that the title of '20 was not perfect, since the eastern boundary was not definitely fixed, and therefore the patent to the sons was final. It was implied, however, that holders under the sisters might have some claim that would be recognized by a court of equity if properly presented; and there were other ramifications of the matter that I cannot follow here; so that in 'S5 the title to certain tracts is not regarded as altogether quieted.
Pico, Calaveras, 602, rej. by l. c., conf. d. c., and rej. s. c. on a grant of July 20, '46. There was an expediente of date prior to July 7th, but as there was some doubt about the grant itself, occupation, etc., the equities of such a cl., if genuine, were not decide l.
Pico, Jamul, S. Diego, 407, rej. by l. c. and d. c. '58 on a grant, or license to occupy, of '31. In some way not clear to me the cl. came before the d. c. in '70, on a grant by Gov. Pico to himself, after a petition from himself to himself, in '45. It was conf., but chiefly as an equitable cl. resting on the license of '31, long occupation, etc. 1 Sawyer, 347.
Pico, Moquelumne, 357, rej. I. c., conf. d. c. - mainly because the court was not at liberty 'to substitute its own suspicions for proofs'-but rej. by the s. c. on grant of June '46, there being no archive expediente, with but slight evid. of occupation. This Mex. grant, however, seems to have pre- vented the land from being gobbled up by the R. R., and in '76 the settlers celebrated by a barbecue a final decision in their favor.
557
A BALKY CASE.
previously by any tribunal. The transcript of record filled 3,584 printed pages; 125 witnesses were exam-
Polack, Yerba Buena Isl., 11, conf. by l. c., but rej. by d. c. on grant of '38. 1 Hoff. 284. There was Do original grant or expediente, only a copy recorded in '49; but there was much and contradictory testimony about the existence of the grant before '46 and the occupation by Castro, grantee; and some direct evid. that Alvarado antedated the grant in '48. The court favored this view; but rejected the cl. on the ground that in the absence of record proof other evidence must be of the best and free from suspicion.
Reading, S. Buenaventura, Sac., 28, conf. by all the courts. 1 Hoff. 18; 18 Howard, 1. In this case the point was urged that R. forfeited his rights as a Mex. citizen by joining Frémont and the Bears against Mex .; and J. Daniel dissented on this ground, holding that Mex. never would have conf. a grant to such a man, and the U. S. were bound to do nothing that Mex. would not have done. But the court held that R.'s act was justifiable (!), not treachery, and if it were the U. S. could not urge an act in their own favor as a ground of forfeiture.
Rico, Ranchería del Rio Estanislao, S. Joaq., 767, conf. by l. c. and d. c., and appeal dismissed, on grant of 11 1. in '43. Judge Hoffman confirmed this cl. on the conf. of the l. c. and the absence of argument or new testimony against it in the d. c., because his suspicions were not sufficient to authorize him to pronounce it a forgery. But later in the Limantour case the Rico grant was found to bear the spurious seal, and was doubtless entirely fraudu- lent. I have seen no record of later proceedings if there were any.
Ritchie, Suisun, Solano Co., 3, conf. by all the courts, on a grant to the Ind. chief Solano in '42, being the second case before the s. c. 17 Howard, 525. This case established the right of the Ind. to receive and sell lands; also that mission lands were subject to colonization grants. Caleb Cushing in an argument of 80 p. claimed that this was a 'job ' of Vallejo to use Solano to get land in addition to his regular grants.
Rocha, La Brea, Los Ang., 487, rej. l. c., conf. d. c. and s. c. on munici- pal grant of '28, and provisional grant of '40 until the pueblo ejidos should be settled. 9 Wallace, 639.
Rodriguez, Butano, Sta Cruz, 627. This was a case where one conf. and patented cl. left no room for another also conf. a little later. By a possible error in the bound of the pat. cl. the court found room for } 1. of the other, and for the rest stretched it over worthless mountains as the best that could be done. 1 Wallace, 582.
Rodriguez, S. Francisquito, Sta Clara, 642, conf. on grant of '39, but a portion overlapped by a later grant Ist surveyed was lost. 29 Cal. 104.
Roland, Los Huecos, Sta Clara, 282, rej. by l. c. for lack of approval by assemb., of juridical possession, and of occupation; rej. by d. c. because the grant was made by the gov. in '46 without investigation; but conf. by s. c. on the ground that in case of a genuine expediente from the archives, even lacking a diseño, the objections urged were not valid. 10 Wallace, 224. Ro- land's cl. in S. Joaq. co. (no. 232) was rej. by all the courts as antedated, though a suspicious expediente was produced from the archives.
Romero, Sobrante de S. Ramon, Contra Costa, 634, rej. by all the courts, because with petition, favorable reports, etc., and actual occupation with boundary agreed upon by neighbors, no formal grant could be shown. 1 Hoff. 226; 1 Wallace, 721. The owners of the adjoining rancho (no. 179, 301, of which this was the sobrante) had their cl. conf. at Ist for the whole extent of both, but the survey was later restricted to 2 1. Meanwhile, congress passed an act allowing the Romero holders to contest Carpentier's survey of S. Ra- mon, and C. made his survey in a most extraordinary shape so as to cover all the good land on both ranchos. This was before the courts in '64, and I do not know the result; but there has been much trouble in the matter since. This Carpentier seems to have been a shrewd land fiend interested in many of the crooked cases.
558
MEXICAN LAND TITLES.
ined, 18 of them prominent men from Mexico; lawyers like Reverdy Johnson, Judah P. Benjamin, Hall
Santillan, Mission Dolores, S. F., '81, cl. of Bolton on a grant of '46, conf. by l. c. '55, and pro forma by d. c. '57, but rej. by s. c. in '59. This was one of the famous cases covering 3 1. of S. F. lands. S., parish priest at S. F. in '46, made known his cl. in '50, selling it to J. R. Bolton, and before the l. c.'s conf. it passed into the possession of a Philadelphia association. The gen- uineness of the original grant, signed by Gov. Pico and Sec. Covarrubias on Feb. 10, '46, was proved by the testimony of C. and his clerk Arenas; no ex- pediente or other doc. from the archives was produced; record and approval by the assemb. were proved by parol evidence; there was testimony-rather doubtful, except in that the witnesses had not yet been impeached-that the grant had existed in '46; and evidence direct and indirect, though of no great weight, that the grant had been antedated in '49-50. That a poverty-stricken Ind. priest should have got a grant of 3 1. on condition of paying the mission debt, that he could have obtained so large a tract of pueblo lands without in- vestigation leaving traces in the archives, and that he could or would have kept his grant a secret from interested residents at the mission and from others for years-all this creates against the cl. a presumption of fraud that could be overcome only by the most complete and satisfactory evidence, and the evidence offered was on the contrary weak and suspicious at every point. The cl. should have been rejected on its merits by the I. c. at the start. The company owning the claim has since '59 made many efforts to obtain satisfac- tion from congress, and in '78 got a favorable report from the house com. on private land claims, recommending a rehearing of the case by the courts with a view to later compensation by the govt if the cl. should be held valid. This report contains nothing new in support of the cl. more important than the promise of the testimony of Santillan and Pico, except that the discovery of a record-book is mentioned. Perhaps this is the Sta. B. Arch., on p. 63 of my copy of which is the record of a deed of '46 from Santillan to Carrillo of part of the mission land, and with it an undated record of the deposit by S. of his title and other doc. in the archives of the juzgado. This, if gennine, would be of course more important in support of the claim than anything presented to the courts. The case has many complications to which I can- not even allude.
Sepúlveda, Sta Mónica, Los Ang., 457; also Reyes, Boca de Sta M., 445; both conf., but no survey or patent as late as '73. At this date there was a quarrel between the claimants as there had been almost continuously since '23-7 when they occupied the land under a provisional license. There had been several grants and revocations with frequent litigation down to '46, and the case was a complicated one; but it was decided that Reyes could hold the area within which his 13 1. were to be located until the final survey should be made. 45 Cal. 379.
Serrano, Temescal, S. Diego, 414, rej. by l. c., conf. d. c., and rej. s. c., on a license of '19, under which S. occupied the land from '19 to '52, his right never being questioned. It was held that his written permission to occupy consti- tuted no equitable cl .; indeed, he would have been better off without it, since long possession with his belief in ownership might have been an equi- table title but for the paper showing his right to be temporary! The Califor- nians did not exactly appreciate this reasoning. 5 Wallace, 451.
Sherreback, 800 v. sq. in S. F., 795, rej. by l. c., conf. by d. c., but decree vacated in '60. It was a grant by the prefect in '45, and without much doubt fraudulent. In '85 this claim comes up again to terrify lot-owners, resting apparently at this stage on some informality in the final decree of rejection.
Stearns, 600 v. sq. in S. F., 94, rej. by all the courts on a grant of '46 to Andrade, including the tract known as the Willows. The grant was held to have been made after July 7th and antedated. 6 Wallace, 589.
Suñol, Coches, Sta Clara, 167, conf. '56 on a grant of '44 to an Ind.,
559
LIST OF CLAIMS.
McAllister, and Edmund Randolph on one side or the other gave utterance to 100 to 400 pages each
Roberto; yet in '50 S. failed to eject an intruder, the Cal. s. c. holding that an Ind. could not make a valid conveyance of land. 1 Hoff. 110; 1 Cal. 255.
Sutherland, Cajon, S. Diego, 262, conf. by all the courts on grant of '45 to Pedrorena. Held not to be void because no bounds or quantity were speci- fied, so long as there was a tract of the name-and only one-in the region. 19 Howard, 363.
Sutter, N. Helvetia, Sac. Val., 92, conf. by all the courts on grant of '41 for 11 1. The original grant had been burned in '51; archive evidence was very slight; and the location was vague in many respects; yet the evidence was deemed conclusive that Sutter had in '41 rec'd a valid grant of 11 1. in the Sac. Val. 21 Howard, 170. As to location the case was sent back to d. c. for further action. As S. had sold lands almost anywhere in the val. where desired, to many persons, the location of his grant became a matter of great importance and difficulty since it was hard to cover with a 11 1. survey claims scattered over 100 1. Originally by a blunder in lines of lati- tude the southern bound had been placed many miles north of the fort, and the squatters of Sac. city struggled to have it appear that S. owned nothing south of the Sac. and Feather junction, S. himself being willing to take that view at times; but the location of the fort and the mention of the 3 buttes as a northern bound were very properly deemed conclusive. The survey of '59-60 located the land in 2 tracts, one of 2 1. including the fort and city, the other of 9 1. on the Feather Riv., including Marysville. The d. c. set aside this survey, and in '63 approved a new one locating the land in a long line of 13 tracts between the same limits as before, the theory being to follow S.'s own successive selections as shown by settlements, deeds, etc., as the nearest approximation to justice. The s. c., however, set aside the last sur- vey and restored that of '60; that is, confirmed the grant as originally made, not attempting the impossible by trying to remedy Sutter's blunders and frauds. 2 Wallace, 562. See also vol. iv., pp. 229-32, of this work, for map and some details.
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.