Younger v. Pagles

Citations

• 60 Cal. 517
• 1882 Cal. LEXIS 500

Syllabus

<p>Ejectment—Mexican Grant—Survey under the Act of June 14, I860— Final Confirmation—Appeal — Presumption — Jurisdiction of United States District Court—Statute of Limitations—Patent— Pre-emption.—In an action of ejectment, the facts as found by the Court were in substance as follows: The land in controversy is within the limits of a Mexican grant to the predecessors in title of the plaintiff, approved by the Departmental Assembly, and of which the juridical possession has been delivered. The claim was duly presented and confirmed by the Land Commissioner and the United States District Court. An appeal was taken to the Supreme Court, but afterwards (in the year 1857), the District Court made an order dismissing the same. In the year 1858, the grant was surveyed by the United States Surveyor General, so as to include the premises in controversy; but in 1861, the survey not having been previously approved, the Surveyor General altered the northern boundary of the survey, so as to exclude it. The survey so corrected was approved, and advertised in accordance with the provisions of the Act of June 14, 1860; and no objection was made to the survey until the sixteenth day of June, 1869, when it was again advertised under the provisions of the Act of July 2, 1864; and objections were made by the owners of the grant, which were still pending, when the suit was brought. The defendant P. entered upon the land in controversy on the ninth day of January, 1860, and has since held the adverse possession. On January 10, 1868, a patent issued to one Henry P., as a pre-emptor, for a portion of the land, who conveyed the same to the defendant P.; to whom also, on May 2, 1870, a patent issued for the balance of the land. The action was commenced on the fifteenth day of April, 1868.</p> <p>Held: 1. The case does not show that the claim to the ranch in question has been finally confirmed by the authorities of the United States. The order of the District Court dismissing the appeal was a