Beley v. Naphtaly

Citations

• 169 U.S. 353
• 18 S. Ct. 354
• 42 L. Ed. 775
• 1898 U.S. LEXIS 1499

Syllabus

<p>The patent to the defendant in error does not preclude this court from inquiring into the effect of the act of July 23, 1866, c. 219, “ to quiet land titles in California; ” and the court holds that that act does not require proof of an áctual grant from the Mexican authorities to some grantee through whom the title set up is derived; but that the proper officers of the United States had jurisdiction to issue a patent upon being satisfied of the existence of those facts in regard to which it was their province to determine; and that the act includes those who, in good faith and for a valuable consideration, have purchased land from those who claimed and were thought to be Mexican grantees or assigns, provided they ful-, fil the other conditions named in the act.</p> <p>The facts in this case do not show, as matter of law, that Millett could not have been a bona fide purchaser of these lands for a valuable consideration ; and whether in fact he were so was a fact to be determined by the Government on the issue of the patent, which precluded further inquiry into that question.</p> <p>A person who was within the statute and had the right to purchase land as provided therein, could assign or convey his right of purchase and his grantee could exercise that right.</p> <p>The rejection by the Secretary of the Interior of the first application made by the defendant in error for a patent, and the subsequent granting of a rehearing and the issuing of a patent thereafter were all acts within his jurisdiction.</p>