USA > California > Santa Clara County > History of Santa Clara County, California : including its geography, geology, topography, climatography and description > Part 20
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 | Part 88 | Part 89 | Part 90
José Estrada reports that the land on which the house is situated belongs to the heirs of Don Luis Arguello, and on the land in the direction of Santa Clara, on this side of the San Francisquito, the cattle and horses of the ex-mission pastured, and that is the only watering-place on said loca- tion.
The Prefect to whom the Governor refers the whole matter, reports that the house, which, according to the map, stands on the land belonging to the widow Soledad, has been moved, as he is informed by the petitioner, and
176
HISTORY OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
that the cattle of the ex-mission have enough land above what the peti- tioner solicits.
We think it evident from the general tenor of these reports that the Gov- ernor and the officers must have had a clear and a definite idea of the situ- ation and extent of the land intended to be granted, and when in addition we have the direct testimony of a Deputy United States Surveyor that the land can, by means of the map and the calls on the grant, be readily located, we think that no ground remains for the rejection of this claim for want of definiteness. No other objection is mentioned by the Commis- sioners. The genuineness of the grant is not disputed, and the grantee appears to have fully complied with the conditions. A decree of confirmna- tion must, therefore, be entered.
THE UNITED STATES Appellants, vs. BERNARD MURPHY, claiming the Rancho Las Uvas.
No objection urged to the confirmation of this claim.
Claim for three leagues of land in Santa Clara county confirmed by the Board, and appealed by the United States.
This case has been submitted without argument on the part of the appel- lants; nor has any reason for reversing the decree of the Board been sug- gested to us.
On looking over the record, it appears that the genuineness of the original grant was fully established, and, indeed, does not seem to be controverted now. The evidence discloses a substantial compliance with the conditions of the grant, and the boundaries of the land are distinctly indicated by nat- ural objects. The land thus bounded has been found, on a survey, to con- tain less than the quantity called for in the grant. We are unable to dis- cover any reason for refusing to confirm the decree of the Commissioners A decree to that effect must therefore be entered.
THE UNITED STATES, Appellants, vs. BERNARD MURPHY, claiming the Rancho La Polka.
The validity of this claim fully established.
Claim for one league of land in Santa Clara county, confirmed by the Board, and appealed by the United States.
It is unnecessary in this case to recapitulate the facts, which are fully stated in the opinion of the Board of Commissioners. The genuineness of the grant, and the residence of the grantee and his children on the land for more . than twenty years, are fully established. The only difficulty in the case is obviated by the form of decree entered by the Board, and which is now prayed may be affirmed by this Court. No objections have been raised on the part of the appellants, and none have been discovered by us. A decree as prayed for must be entered.
عمور ** ـ
Gray
J. r. Largent
THE NEVANOPX
A. T ?!
( . : >
y
177
MEXICAN GRANTS.
THE UNITED STATES, Appellants, vs. MARIA CONCEPCION VALENCIA DE RODRIGUEZ, et al., claiming the Runcho San Francisquito.
No objection to this claim made by the United States.
Claim for three-fourths of one league of land in Santa Clara county, con- firmed by the Board, and appealed by the United States.
The grant in this case was made May 1, 1839, by Governor Alvarado to Antonio Buelna, the husband of the claimant. Buelna, after obtaining his grant, appears by the proofs to have occupied and cultivated his land and continued to live there with his family until his decease. The present claim- ant, his widow, seems to be his sole heir.
The genuineness of the grant seems to be fully proved, and the Board has confirmed the claim according to a judicial measurement, which, on a re- survey, has been found to include less than the quantity mentioned in the grant. We think the decree of the Board should be affirmed.
WILLIAM A. DANA, et al., claiming part of the Rancho San Antonio, Appellants, vs. THE UNITED STATES.
Objections removed by further testimony taken in this Court.
Claim for about six thousand acres of land in Santa Clara county, rejected by the Board, and appealed by the claimants.
The claimants in this case derive their title from a grant made by Governor Alvarado, March 26, 1839, and confirmed by the Departmental Assembly, May 26, 1840. The nonproduction of the original grant is accounted for by the depositions of various witnesses taken in case number two hundred and seventy-five, and by stipulation made evidence in this case: and a copy has been introduced, duly certified by Manuel Jimeno and two assisting wit- nesses, as true and legal, from the original expediente in the office of the Sec- retary. A certificate signed by Manuel Micheltorena, Governor, and M. Jimeno, Secretary, dated October 12, 1843, is also produced, from which it appears that the grant was confirmed by the Departmental Assembly May 26, 1841. It also directs that this certificate be delivered to the interested party in confirmation of his grant. A copy of the expediente from the archives is also produced, containing the original petition and diseño of the land solic- ited, and the subsequent proceedings thereon, including the degree of concess- ion, the approval of the Departmental Assembly, the Governor's certificate in confirmation of the grant, and a copy of the title delivered to the grantee.
The authenticity and genuineness of these documents are fully established by proof.
The conditions of the grant appear to have been fully complied with, and the description in the grant, and the delineation of the tract on the diseño identify the land with sufficient certainty. The claim in this case was rejected by the Board of Commissioners for defect in the chain of mesne con-
12
178
HISTORY OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
veyances, through which the claimants derive their title. Those defeets have since been supplied, and the title of the claimants seem to be regularly deduced from the original grantee. With respect to the original grant there seems to be no controversy. Its validity was not doubted by the Board, and it has been confirmed in another case now before this Court. But the claim in the present case is for a certain part of the tract originally granted, which is alleged to have been sold after the decease of the grantee, by his executor to pay his debts. A deed from the heirs of the grantee is also produced, conveying to the purchaser the same land bought by him at- the sale by the executor.
The present claimants have thus shown a prima facie right to the land petitioned for, and as it is clear that the United States have no rights in the land as part of the public domain, we consider it our duty to confirm this claim and to leave the parties to litigate between themselves any questions which may arise as to the validity of the executor's sale or the conveyance by the heirs of the original grantee. The degree of this Court can have no effect upon the conflicting rights of third parties, and merely determines the validity of the claim as against the United States. The elaborate and con- elusive argument of Mr. Commissioner Thornton, on the right of contesting claimants to intervene in a suit before the Board, relieves us from the neces- sity of discussing the question involved in this case, especially as no opposi- tion is made to the confirmation of this claim on the part of any persons holding adverse titles to the land. The elaim must therefore be confirmed to so much of the land petitioned for as is contained within the boundaries of the tract granted to Prado Mesa.
THE UNITED STATES, Appellants, vs. SEBASTIAN PERALTA et al., claiming the Rancho Rinconada de los Gatos.
The validity of this claim fully established.
Claim for one league and a half of land in Santa Clara county, confirmed by the Board, and appealed by the United States.
The grant under which this claim is made was issued by Governor Alvarado May 20, 1840. The original title is produced, and the signatures fully proved, and also a certificate of approval by the Departmental Assem- bly. The land seems to have been occupied prior to the grant, and a house was built in which the parties have ever since continued to reside.
The land granted is described as the " Rinconada de los Gatos," and the third condition limits the quantity to one league and a half, as shown on the map. On recurring to the map, we find the tract solicited indicated with tolerable precision, and sufficiently so to enable a surveyor to locate it without diffi- culty. The claim was confirmed by the Board, and we think their decision should be affirmed.
179
MEXICAN GRANTS.
THE UNITED STATES, Appellants, vs. ANTONIO SUÑOL et al., claiming the Rancho Los Coches.
This claim submitted without argument on behalf of the appellants.
Claim for a half-league of land in Santa Clara county, confirmed by the Board, and appealed by the United States.
The claim in this case was unanimously confirmed by the Board of Com- missioners. It has been submitted to this Court on the proofs taken before the Board, and without argument on the part of the appellants, or the state- ment of any objection to its validity. On reference to the opinion of the Board, we find but two questions discussed, and which, it is presumed, were the only points made on the part of the United States.
The first relates to the location of the grant. The Board, after an elabo- rate and thorough examination of the testimony, arrive at the conclusion that the calls in the grant and the delineation of the tract on the diseño are abundantly sufficient to enable a surveyor to locate the grant. On examin- ing the transcript, this opinion of the Board seems fully sustained by the proofs, and the doubts or difficulties felt by some of the witnesses as to the proper location of the land seems to have originated in a misconception of the true meaning of some of the calls in the grant. The grantee is shown to have occupied his land from a period anterior to his grant; to have lived there with his wife and children, and to have made considerable improvements.
To the discussion of the second and more important question, whether Roberts, the original grantee, being an Indian, had a right to receive grants of land under the Mexican laws, and to convey the land so granted, the Board devote a large portion of their opinion. But that question has been settled in the Supreme Court in accordance with the views expressed by the Board, and is no longer open for argument in this Court. The genuineness of the original documents is not questioned, and the title of the present claimant appears to have been regularly derived from the original grantee and his heirs, and to have been accompanied by possession. A decree affirming the decision of the Board must therefore be entered.
THE UNITED STATES, Appellants, vs. JUANA BRIONES, claiming the Rancho La Purisima Concepcion.
The validity of this claim undoubted.
Claim for one square league of land in Santa Clara county, confirmed by the Board and appealed by the United States.
The Board of Commissioners, in their opinion in this case, observed that it presents no point of doubt or difficulty. The genuineness of the original grant is fully established. The grantees are shown to have been in the pos- session and occupation of the land for several years prior to their grant, and
180
HISTORY OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
continued to reside on it until 1844, when, with the permission of the Gov- ernor, it was sold to the present claimant. The latter has resided on it up to the time of the filing of her petition.
In a note appended to the original grant, the boundaries are indicated with much precision ; and the grant declares the quantity of land granted to be one square league. No objection was made to this claim on behalf of the United States, and we think it should be confirmed to the appellee. A decree to that effect will therefore be entered.
THE UNITED STATES, Appellants, vs. RUFINA CASTRO, et al, claiming the Rancho Solis.
The nonproduction of the grant in this case does not affect the validity of the claim, the loss of the grant being proved, and long and notorious occu- pation of the land established.
Claim for two leagues of land in Santa Clara county, confirmed by the Board, and appealed by the United States.
The only doubt that can be raised with regard to the validity of this claim, arises from the fact that the original grant is not produced. The Board, however, after considering the evidence taken to show that the giant had been delivered to the deceased grantce, as well as its subsequent loss, arrive at the conclusion that it duly issued as represented in the petition. The fact that the list of grants in the archives contains this amongst cthers, the parol testimony of several witnesses who have seen it and know that it was produced and referred to, to settle disputed boundary lines, and the still more conclusive fact that the grantee and his family have resided upon the land for more than twenty years, are sufficient to remove any suspicion which the nonproduction of the grant might otherwise suggest. An occu- pation so long continued and so notorious, with a claim of ownership so universally recognized, might of itself be deemed sufficient evidence of own- ership.
The claim was unanimously confirmed by the Board, and we see no reason for reversing their judgment; nor has any been suggested on the part of the United States. A decree of confirmation must therefore be entered.
THE UNITED STATES, Appellants, vs. THE HEIRS OF JOSÉ MARIA SANCHEZ, claiming the Rancho Las Animas. .
The objection that the boundary of an adjoining rancho is affected by this claim is untenable, the controversy being between and including the United States only.
Claim for four leagues of land in Santa Clara county, confirmed by the Board, and appealed by the United States.
The claim in this case is founded on a title issued by Governor Figueroa
181
MEXICAN GRANTS.
to the widow of Mariano Castro. It appears from the voluminous docu- ments contained in the expediente, that Josefa Romero, the widow of Castro, petitioned the Governor for a revalidation of the title of her husband, or in case the papers on file did not authorize such a proceeding, then for a new grant to herself. The Governor directed a search to be made in the archives for the record of the proceedings relative to the first grant. That record is embodied in a report of the Secretary Negrete, and presented to the Gov- ernor for his examination. It is unnecessary to recapitulate these documents, or to examine the various reports and records of proceedings before the Vice- roy of New Spain on Miriano Castro's petition. The Governor seems to have been satisfied as to the right of Josefa Romero to have the land which Mariano Castro had occupied for many years confirmed to her. He accord - ingly issued his decree recognizing the right of the party as ascertained from the archives, and ordered the proper testimonial of her title to the property to be issued to her. In this decree the Governor mentions that the rancho of Las Animas has been possessed by Castro and his family for more than twenty years, " in public notoriety," and as their right is proved to this tract granted to Castro under the name of La Brea, by the Vice Roval Govern- ment in 1802, he ordered a testimonial to issue for their protection, and inasmuch as the boundaries are not expressly defined in the grant of the Viceroy, the parties must confine themselves to those set forth in the petition filed on the part of Rufina Romero, leaving uninjured the rights of any third party who may consider himself aggrieved by the proceedings.
The authenticity of all the documents in the case is provedl, and the long continued habitation and cultivation of the rancho for nearly half a century by those under whom the appellees claim, leave no doubt as to the validity of the title. It was accordingly unanimously confirmed by the Board.
Much testimony has been taken on the part of the claimants of the adjoin- ing rancho of San Ysidro, to prove the precise location of the boun laries between that rancho and the rancho of Las A'nimas. But it has already been determined by this Court and the Board of Commissioners, that the rights of third parties cannot be adjudicated in this form, and that the question to be determined in this class of cases is merely the validity of the claim as against the United States. Between the United States and the claimants final decrees in these suits are conclusive, but the Act of 1851 expressly declares that such decrees shall not affect the interests of third persons. All questions between claimants arising out of a conflict of boundaries are by the thirteenth section of that Act more appropriately referred,in the first instance, to the Surveyor-General, but leaving to the parties the right of resorting to the proper judicial tribunals.
As the " testimonial" or decree made by the Governor mentions the boundaries of the tract of "Las Animas" to be those indicated in the diseño
182
HISTORY OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
which accompanies the petition, leaving uninjured the right of any third party who may consider himself aggrieved by the proceeding, the right of such parties would seem to have been intended to be left in the same condi- tion as under patent issued by the United States under the law of 1851.
It is clear, from the terms of the testimonial, that the Governor intended to confirm and recognize the rights of the petitioners to the land of which they had long been in possession; and that so far as the Government was concerned, he was willing to adopt the boundaries indicated by the peti- tioners on the diseño. But those boundaries were not intended to be conclu- sive upon the rights of others, and the reservation made in the decree clearly shows, that if, in delineating the boundaries of the tract of which they claimed to be owners, the petitioners had exceeded its true limits or included the land of others, the rights of such parties were not intended to be preju- diced by the decree "of concession.
I think, therefore, that a decree should be entered in this Court in con- formity with the decree of the Governor, and that the title of the claimants should be confirmed to the land according to the boundaries indicated on the diseño, but without prejudice to the rights of the parties who may be injured by such location.
THE UNITED STATES, Appellants, vs. AUGUSTIN BERNAL, claiming the Rancho Santa Teresa.
The validity of this claim not disputed.
The claim in this case was confirmed by the Board, and it has been sub- mitted to this Court on appeal without argument on the part of the United States.
The claim seems to be one of the most meritorious which has been pre- sented for our consideration.
The petition of Joaquin Bernal bears date May 10, 1834, and states that the petitioner was an invalid soldier, ninety-four years old, and with a pos- terity of seventy-eight children. That he had entered into possession of the place five years before, by permission of the Ayuntamiento of the Pueblo of San José, and that he and his family had built four adobe houses, and had continued to occupy the land with his property, consisting of twenty-one hundred head of cattle, one hundred and twenty sheep, three mares and fifty tame horses, etc.
The Governor, after the usual references, acceded to the petition, and the concession was confirmed by the Departmental Assembly, with a slight modification of the boundaries of the tract-the Assembly having decided on the application of Juan Alvirez to accept out of the land the portion claimed by the latter. In accordance with this resolution, the title was issued to Bernal on July 11, 1834. In the month of July, 1835, Bernal
183
MEXICAN GRANTS.
applied to the Constitutional Alcalde of San José for judicial possession of the tract granted, which was accordingly given by that officer.
The genuineness of the original title is clearly proved, as well as that of the " testimonio " or certificate delivered to the grantee by the officer giving judicial possession. To this latter instrument were prefixed the original grant and a copy of the map contained in the expediente. The latter docu- ment is also duly produced from the archives, and the genuineness of the elaim is established beyond all doubt by the production of all the evidence of every kind which can be adduced in support of a grant by the former Gov- ernment of this country. From the year 1826 until the present time, the land has been occupied under an unquestioned title by the grantee and his numerous descendants. The only doubt suggested in this case arises from an alleged error in the boundaries, as fixed by the officers giving judicial possession. But on closely examining the proof's, there does not seem any reason to suppose such an error to have been committed. The survey on which reliance was placed as establishing that the tract of which possession was given exceeded in extent the quantity granted, appears to have been exceedingly inaccurate, for independently of the surveyor's map, it is also shown that the tract surveyed, and the extent of which he attempts to establish included a considerable quantity of land not comprised within the boundaries established by the officer who gave judicial possession. On the whole case there seems no reason to suppose that the tract of which possession was given, and of which the grantee and his heirs have enjoyed the undisputed and notorious possession for more than thirty years, differs either in quantity or as to boundaries from that described in the grant and the map to which it refers. The opinion of the Commissioners is so full and conclusive on this point that it is not deemed necessary to discuss it further, particularly as the objection has not been urged in this Court, or any attempt to impair the force of the reasoning, or correctness of the conclusion of the Board. We think, therefore, that a decree of confirmation should be entered, for the land, as described in the grant, and according to the boundaries fixed in the act of judicial possession.
THE UNITED STATES, Appellants, vs. MANUEL ALVISO, claiming the Rancho Quito.
No objection to the validity of the claim.
The claim in this case was confirmed by the Board.
It has been submitted to this Court without argument or the statement on the part of the appellants of any reasons for reversing their decree. No doubt seems to have been entertained by the Commis- sioners as to the authenticity of the grant. The original is produced and the expediente is found in the archives. The land was occupied and
184
HISTORY OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
cultivated by the original grantees, and has continued in their possession and that of persons claiming under them, until the present day. Its boundaries are well known, and described with considerable precision in the grant and accompanying map. We see no reason for reversing the decision of the Board. The claim must therefore be confirmed.
THE UNITED STATES, Appellants, vs. CHARLES FOSSAT claiming the Rancho Los Capitancillos.
The genuineness of the grant in this case not disputed. The ruling in Estudillo's case, that the words "poco mas o menos" are operative for such fractional parts of a league as may be in excess of the quantity named in the grant, reaffirmed. The southern boundary of the land granted to Justo Larios declared to be the main Sierra, and not the low hills or lomas bajas.
Claim for one league of land in Santa Clara county, confirmed by the Board, and appealed by the United States.
At the hearing of this case, the Court entertaining no doubt upon the points presented, expressed verbally its opinion. At the suggestion of the Attorney for the claimants, I have committed to writing the substance of the views then expressed.
The genuineness of the grant was not disputed. The only questions discussed were as to the extent and the boundaries of the tract granted. The land is described in the grant as known by the name of the Capitancillos, bounded by the Sierra, by the Arroyo Seca on the side of the establishment of Santa Clara, and by the rancho of citizen Jose R. Berreyessa, which has for a boundary. a line running from the junction of the Arroyo Seca and Arroyo de los Alamitos south ward to the Sierra, passing by the eastern "falda" of the small hill situated in the center of the Cañada. The third condition states that the land herein referred to is one league de ganado muyor, a little more or less, as is explained by the map accompanying the expediente.
It had been urged to the Court in previous cases, that where the conditions of a grant mentioned the tract referred to as of so many leagues "a little more or less," the latter words should be rejected for uncertainty, and the quantity of land should be limited to the number of leagues mentioned. But this construction the court had refused to adopt. It was considered that the inquiry in these, as in other grants, was as to the intention of the grantor, and that the Court could not attribute to him an intention to grant so many leagues and no more, in the face of his declaration that he intended to grant the specified quantity, a "little more or less."
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.