THE DECISIONS OF THE Supreme Court of the United States, AT OCTOBER TERM, 1887. [Authenticated copy of opinion record strictly followed, except as to such reference words and figures as are enclosed in brackets.] A. P. MORE ET AL., Appts., v. RUDOLPH STEINBACH ET AL. (See S. C. Reporter's ed. 70-85.) California land claim-decision of board-U. taken, except in pursuance to its authority on the subject. 5. Under the Code of Civil Procedure of California a plaintiff asserting title to lands, though out of possession, may maintain an action to determine an adverse claim, estate, or interest in the premises. [No. 176.] S. patent-Mexican grant-laws of con- Submitted Feb. 9, 1888. Decided April 16, 1888. quered country-Code of California. 1. The Act of Congress of March 3, 1851, "to ascertain and settle the private land claims in the State of of the United States for the District of Cal Statement by Mr. Justice Field: APPEAL from a decree of the Circuit Court California," 9 Stat. at L. 631, created a board of com-ifornia, determining, in favor of plaintiffs, missioners to which all persons claiming land by adverse claims to lands in California. Afvirtue of any right or title derived from the Span-firmed. ish or Mexican government were required to present their claims for examination and determination within two years from its date, with such documentary evidence and testimony of witnesses as they relied upon to support their claims; and provided, in substance, that if upon examination they were found by the board, and by the courts of the United States, to which an appeal could be taken, to be valid, the claims should be confirmed and surveyed, and patents issued therefor to the claimants, but that all lands the claims to which were not presented to the board within that period should be considered as a part of the public domain of the United States. Heid: (a) That this provision requiring the presentation of their claims was obligatory on claimants, and that they were bound by the judgment of the board, if confirmed by the courts of the United States on appeal, and by the survey and location of the claim by the officers of the Land Department, following the final decree of confirmation. (b) That the patent of the United States, issued after the claim was surveyed and located, is conclusive, both as to the validity of the title of the claimant and the extent and boundaries of his claim, as against all parties not claiming by superior title such as would enable them to contest the action of the government respecting the property. 2. In order that a perfect title to land might vest under a grant from the Mexican Government, a delivery of possession by its officers was necessary. The proceeding was termed a judicial delivery of possession. 3. The authority and jurisdiction of Mexican officials in California terminated on the 7th of July, 1846. No alcalde appointed or elected subsequent to that date was empowered to give judicial possession of land granted by the previous govern ment. po 4. The doctrine that the laws of a conquered or ceded country, except so far as affected by the litical institutions of the new government, remain in force, after conquest or cession, until changed by it, does not apply to laws authorizing the alienation of any portions of the public domain, or to officers charged under the former government with that power. No proceedings affecting the rights of the new government over public property could be *Head notes by Mr. Justice FIELD. This is a suit in equity to determine the adverse claims of the defendants below, appellants here, to certain lands in the County of Ventura, in the State of California. One of the plaintiffs, Rudolph Steinbach, is an alien, and a subject of the Emperor of Germany. The other plaintiff, Horace W. Carpentier, is a citizen of the State of New York. The defendants are all citizens of the State of California. In their complaint the plaintiffs allege that they are the owners in fee of the premises, which are fully described; that the defendants claim an estate therein adverse to them; that such claim is and that its assertion depreciates the value of wholly unfounded and invalid in law or equity; their title and property, and prevents them from using or selling the property, and otherwise harasses and annoys them in its possession and ownership. They therefore pray that the defendants may be required to set forth the grounds and nature of their claims and pretensions, that the court may determine each of them; and that it may be adjudged that they are unfounded in law and equity, and that the plaintiffs are the owners of the premises, and entitled to their possession, and may have a writ of assistance for the possession of such tion of the defendants; and for such other and portions as may be found to be in the occupafurther relief as may be just. In their answer the defendants disclaim all interest in a portion of the premises, and deny that the plaintiffs have any estate in the residue. As to such residue, they admit that they claim an estate in fee simple therein, and aver that the defendant A. P. More is now, and his grantors have been since 1843, the owners | ants, Davidson and others, who had acquired thereof in fee by virtue of grant made April by proper conveyances whatever rights Manuel 28, 1840, by Alvarado, then Governor of the Jimeno possessed under the grant. The defendDepartment of California under the Mexican ants afterwards succeeded to the rights and Government; that the grant was approved by title of these claimants. the Departmental Assembly on the 26th of May, 1840; and that thereafter, on the 1st of April, 1843, Micheltorena, then Governor of the Department, ratified and confirmed the grant; and that, on the 17th and 18th of November, 1847, the grant was duly surveyed, and the grantee placed in possession by the first alcalde of the district, in presence of the neighboring proprietors, who consented to the lines thus established. The patent to Davidson and others recites the various proceedings taken by them for the confirmation of the claim to the land covered by the grant to Manuel Jimeno, issued by Governor Alvarado on the 28th of April, 1840, and approved in a subsequent instrument by Governor Micheltorena on the 1st of April, 1843, which two instruments are described as separate grants; the confirmation of the claim by The answer further alleges that the grant the board of land commissioners on the 22d of was adjudged to be valid, and confirmed, under May, 1855; and that, an appeal having been the Act of Congress of March 3, 1851, "to as taken to the District Court of the United States certain and settle the private land claims in the for the Southern District of California, the AtState of California," 9 Stat. at L. 631; and thattorney-General of the United States gave notice the defendant A. P. More, on the 4th of March, that it was not the intention of the United 1858, succeeded by proper conveyances to all States to prosecute it, and thereupon, at its the interests of the grantee in the premises, | December Term, 1857. it was dismissed by the and still remains the owner thereof, except as to a portion not in dispute here, which he has alienated, and as to portions which are described as belonging to the other defendants, all of whom assert title to the parcels held by them under conveyances from him. court The patent also recites the subsequent proceedings taken for the location and survey of the claim, by which it appears that two surveys were made, both of which were brought before the District Court of the United States under the Act of 1860, and that the one made under instructions of the United States Surveyor-General in December, 1860, and approved by him in February, 1861, was adopted by the court "as the correct and true location of the lands confirmed." The descriptive notes of the survey approved are set forth in the patent, with a plat of the lands. A replication being filed, proofs were taken, from which it appears that the plaintiffs claimed under a patent of the United States, issued to one Manuel Antonio Rodrigues de Poli, bearing date on the 24th of August, 1874. It is conceded that whatever title was acquired by Poli under the patent had passed by proper mesne conveyances to them. The patent recites the proceedings taken by Poli before the This patent does not embrace the premises land commissioners under the Act of March to which adverse claims are asserted by the de3, 1851; the filing of his petition in March, 1852, fendants. Their contention is that the grant, asking for the confirmation of his title to a followed by the judicial possession given by tract of land known as the Mission of San the alcalde of the vicinity in 1847, vested in Buenaventura, his claim being founded upon the grantee a perfect title to the lands within a sale made on the 8th of June, 1846, by the such judicial possession, which does embrace then Governor of the Department of California; these lands; and that their right to such lands the decree of confirmation rendered by the is not lost by reason of the fact that they are board of commissioners in May, 1855; the af- not included in the subsequent survey of the firmation of said decree by the District Court claim under the Act of 1851, and the patent of the United States for the Southern District of the United States. The court below held of California, in April, 1861, to the extent of against their contention; and adjudged that eleven square leagues, and by the Supreme the plaintiffs were owners in fee of the deCourt of the United States, as shown by its scribed premises, and that the adverse claims mandate issued in December, 1868; and the of the defendants to an estate or interest theresubsequent depositing in the General Land Of-in were unfounded in law or equity; and gave fice of a plat of the survey of the claim con- a decree, as prayed, for the plaintiffs. From firmed, authenticated by the signature of the this decree the defendants have appealed to Surveyor-General of the United States for Cal- this court. ifornia, the descriptive notes and plat of the survey being set forth in full. The land of which the plaintiffs claim to be the owners is embraced in this patent, and upon its efficacy in transferring the title they rely. Messrs. George Flournoy and John B. Mhoon, for appellants: In the Act of 1851 the words "third persons" are those whose title_accrued before the duty of the United States Government and its rights under the treaty attached. It also appears from the face of the patent that it issued on a sale of mission lands made by Pico June 8, 1846; and no authority is shown in Pico to sell; and this court will take The defendants, as stated in their answer, Teschemacher v. Thompson, 18 Cal. 27; Beard claim under a grant made by Governor Alva-v. Federy, 70 U. S. 3 Wall. 493 (18: 93); Meader rado to Manuel Jimeno on the 28th of April, v. Norton, 78 U. S. 11 Wall. 457 (20:187). 1840, which was confirmed under the Act of Congress of March 3, 1851, to ascertain and settle private land claims in California. It appeared in evidence—a fact not averred in the answer-that the claim thus confirmed was sub-notice that said sale was void. sequently surveyed as required by that Act, and on the 22d of April, 1872, a patent of the United States therefor was issued to the claim U. S. v. Workman, 68 U. S. 1 Wall. 745 (17: 705); U. S. v. Jones, Id. 766 (17: 712). It also appears from the face of the patent that it was founded on a Mexican title; and as I and thereupon claim, as against another patappellants claim under a Mexican title, a patentee of the United States, the pretended exent from the United States is inadmissible as cess alleged to have been excluded from the between such claimants. U. S. v. White, 64 U. S. 23 How. 249 (16: 560). If the sale to Jose Arnaz was void, the patent issued thereon is void. Hunter v. U. S. 30 U. S. 5 Pet. 188 (8: 92). The appellants' title to the land described in the answer was complete and perfect in all respects, prior to the cession of California to the United States. Minturn v. Brower, 24 Cal. 645; Schmitt v. Giovanari, 43 Cal. 617; Malarin v. U. S. 68 U. S. 1 Wall. 282 (17: 594); U. S. v. Castro, 5 Sawy. 628; Rancho Corte de Madera del Presidio, Copp's Pub. Land Laws, 532. Pablo de la Guerra had jurisdiction to make the survey. Cohas v. Raisin, 3 Cal. 443; White v. Moses, 21 Cal. 34; Merryman v. Bourne, 76 U. S. 9 Wall. 602 (19: 686); Palmer v. Low, 2 Sawy. 250; Pico v. U. S. 1 Hoffm. L. C. 279. decree of confirmation, the final survey and the patent? It is impossible to answer this question more conclusively than by asking it. Its simple statement is the strongest argument that can be made in favor of the appellees. This question has been answered in the negative. Cassidy v. Carr, 48 Cal. 339; Boyle v. Hinds, 2 Sawy. 527; Minturn v. Brower, 24 Cal. 664; Teschemacher v. Thompson, 18 Cal. 25, 26; Leese v. Clark, 20 Cal. 423, 424; S. C. 18 Cal. 571, 572; U. S. v. Halleck, 68 U. S. 1 Wall. 455, 456 (17: 668); U. S. v. Billings, 69 U. S. 2 Wall. 448 (17:849); Higuera v. U. S. 72 U. S. 5 Wall. 827 (18: 469); Beard v. Federy, 70 U. S. 3 Wall. 489, 492, 493 (18: 91-93). Beard v. Federy, is affirmed in St. Louis Smelting & Ref. Co. v. Kemp, 104 U. S. 641 (26: 876), a case which states, with great power, the conclusive effect to be attributed to patents of the United States. See also Moore v. Wilkinson, 13 Cal. 478; Boggs The laws of a conquered or ceded country remain in force until altered by the new sov-v. Merced Min. Co. 14 Cal. 279; affirmed in Steel ereign. Mitchel v. U. S. 34 U. S. 9 Pet. 749 (9: 297). If we have shown a perfect title from Mexico in Jimeno prior to the treaty of cession, the United States must protect it. The treaty of cession stipulated for such protection. Beard v. Federy, 70 U. S. 3 Wall. 490 (18:92). A United States patent on a Mexican grant is a quitclaim deed from the government, and does not enlarge or abridge pre-existing titles. U. S. v. Arredondo, 31 U. S. 6 Pet. 736 (8: 564); New Orleans v. De Armas, 34 U. S. 9 Pet. 224 (9: 109); Langdeau v. Hanes, 88 U. S. 21 Wall. 521 (22: 606); Nelson v. Moon, 3 Mc Lean, 319; Louisiana Survey Act, 1831, § 6, 4 U. S. Stat. at L. 492; Private Land Claims Act, § 13, 9 U. S. Stat. at L. 630. The appellants are not estopped by a quitclaim deed under which they do not claim. Bigelow, Estop. 274; Kidder v. Blaisdell, 45 Me. 461. But if the Pico sale, upon which the De Poli patent issued, is valid, and the juridical survey of November, 1847, is void, the respondents are estopped from now objecting to the lines then established and agreed upon by Anguisola, in charge of the Mission. v. St. Louis Smelting & Ref. Co. 106 U. S. 454 (27: 229); U. S. v. Sepulveda, 68 U. S. 1 Wall. 104 (17: 569); Manning v. San Jacinto Tin Co. 9 Fed. Rep. 726; Maxwell Land-Grant Case, 121 U. S. 325 (30: 949); S. C. on rehearing, 122 U. S. 365 (30: 1211); U. S. v. Hancock, 30 Fed. Rep. 851. The question as to whether the survey in fact conforms to the claim confirmed, or not, is one to be determined by the department, and not by the courts. U. S.v. Flint, 4 Sawy. 61; Beard v. Federy, 70 U. S. 3 Wall. 492, 493 (18: 92, 93); U. S. v. Sepulveda, 68 U. S. 1 Wall. 108, 109 (17:570). The decision approving the survey was a judgment, and could only be reviewed in the same manner and under like proceedings as other judgments might be. Manning v. San Jacinto Tin Co. 9 Fed. Rep. 734. The authority and jurisdiction of Mexican officers in California are regarded as terminating on the 7th of July, 1846. U. S. v. Yorba, 68 U. S. 1 Wall. 412, 423 (17: 635, 637); Stearns v. U. S. 73 U. S. 6 Wall. 589 (18: 843); Hornsby v. U. S. 77 U. S. 10 Wall. 239 (19: 904). It is certain that no such authority existed after the overthrow of the Mexican Government. Fremont v. U. S. 58 U. S. 17 How. 563 (15: 248). California Code Civil Procedure, § 1963, subd. 15; Stinson v. Hawkins, 13 Fed. Rep. 833; Stowe v. U. S. 86 U. S. 19 Wall. 13 (22: 144); Bronson v. Chappell, 79 U. S. 12 Wall. 681 (20:436); Bigelow, Estop. 3d ed. 525; Spring v. Hewston, 52 Cal. 442; Carpentier v. Thirston, 24 Cal. 281; Alviso v. U. S. 75 U. S. 8 Wall. 337 (19: 305); Higuera v. U. S. 72 U. S. 5 Wall. 827 (18: 469); Fossat v. U. S. 69 U. S. 2 Wall.ment acting as such. 715 (17: 751). Mr. E. S. Pillsbury, for appellees: Can a grantee of an imperfect Mexican grant present his claim to the board of land commissioners, procure a decree of confirmation, a patent of the United States to be issued upon that survey, accept the said patent, and then, years afterwards, turn around and claim that the decree of confirmation, the final survey and the patent did not embrace all the land which he should have had under the grant, Measurement and segregation from the public domain were official acts, and could only be made by the officers of the Mexican Govern Boggs v. Merced Min. Co. 14 Cal. 279. They were essential to complete investiture of title. U. S. v. Castro, 5 Sawy. 628; Malarin v. U. S. 68 U. S. 1 Wall. 289 (17: 595). The appellants voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction of the tribunals appointed by the United States. This precludes them from now attacking that jurisdiction. Cassidy v. Carr, 48 Cal. 339; Boyle v. Hinds, 2 Sawy. 527; Minturn v. Brower, 24 Cal. 664. The phrase "third persons," in the Act of 1851, refers only to those who had perfect-and therefore paramount-titles under the Mexican Government, and who in no wise claimed under or were in privity with the United States. Minturn v. Brower, 24 Cal. 668; Leese v. Clark, 18 Cal. 572; De Arguello v. Greer, 26 Cal. 616; Beard v. Federy, 70 U. S. 3 Wall. 493 (18:93). The doctrine as to the validity of the Land Department's acts, when it has jurisdiction, goes so far that if, in any circumstances, under existing law, a patent would be held valid, it will be presumed that such circumstance existed. St. Louis Smelting & Ref. Co. v. Kemp, 104 U. S. 646 (26: 878). In an action to determine adverse claims to real property in the State of California, possession is of no importance, since the adoption of the Codes in 1873. People v. Center, 66 Cal. 551; Pierce v. Felter, 53 Cal. 18; Stoddart v. Burge, Id. 395. 1851. By it a board of commissioners was created, to which all persons claiming land by virtue of any right or title derived from the Mexican or Spanish Governments could present their claims and have them examined and their validity determined; and the claimants could appear by counsel and produce documentary evidence and witnesses in support of their claims. The Act required all persons thus claiming lands in California to present their claims to the board within two years from its date, and declared in substance that if, upon examination, they were found by the board, and by the courts of the United States to which an appeal was allowed, to be valid, the claims should be confirmed and surveyed, and patents issued therefor to the claimants. But the Act also declared that all lands the claims to which were not presented to the board within that period should be considered as part of the public domain of the United States. In Beard v. Federy, 70 U. S. 3 Wall. 490 [18: 92], this court, whilst stating that it was unnecessary to express any opinion as to the valid This state statute, as so construed by the highest state court, will be enforced in the fed-ity of the legislation in respect to perfect titles eral courts. Holland v. Challen, 110 U. S. 15 (28:52); Reynolds v. Crawfordsville First Nat. Bank, 112 U. S. 411 (28:736); Chapman v. Brewer, 114 U. S. 171 (29: 88). The commissioners had jurisdiction to determine what land was embraced in De Poli's claim. Steinback v. Perkins, 58 Cal. 86, 88. The patent is conclusive. Gallagher v. Riley, 49 Cal. 473; De Arguello v. Greer, 26 Cal. 616; De Bernal v. Lynch, 36 Cal. 135; Shartzer v. Love, 40 Cal. 93; Greer v. Mezes, 65 U. S. 24 How. 268 (16: 661); Carey v. Brown, 58 Cal. 180; Chipley v. Farris, 45 Cal. 538, 539; San Diego v. Allison, 46 Cal. 162; Reed v. Ybarra, 50 Cal. 465. Mr. Justice Field delivered the opinion of the court: acquired under the former government, held The question presented for determination in this case relates to the effect of proceedings taken under the Act of March 3, 1851, to ascertain and settle private land claims in California, upon the claims of parties holding concessions of lands in that State under the Spanish or the Mexican Government. By the cession of California to the United States, the rights of the inhabitants to their property were not affected. They remained as before. Political jurisdiction and sovereignty over the territory and public property alone passed to the United States. U. S. v. Percheman, 32 U. S. 7 Pet. 51, 87 [8: 604, 617]. Previous to the cession numerous grants of land in California had been made by the Spanish and Mexican Governments to private parties. Some of these The authority and jurisdiction of Mexican were of tracts with defined boundaries; some officials terminated on the 7th of July, 1846. were for specific quantities of land to be se- On that day the forces of the United States took lected from areas containing a much larger possession of Monterey, the capital of California, quantity; and others were of lands known and soon afterwards occupied the principal poronly by particular names, without any desig-tions of the country; and the military occupanated boundaries. To ascertain what rights had thus passed, and to carry out the obligation which the Government of the United States had assumed, to protect all rights of property of those who remained citizens of the country, Congress passed the Act of March 3, I tion continued until after the treaty of peace. The political department of the government designated that day as the period when the conquest of California was complete and the authority of the officials of Mexico ceased. In this matter the judiciary follows the political depart ment. U. S v. Yorba, 68 U. S. 1 Wall. 412, 423 [17:635, 637]; U. S. v. Pico, 64 U. S. 23 How. 321, 326 [16: 464, 466]; Hornsby v. U. S. 77 U. S. 10 Wall. 224, 239 [19:900, 904]. After that date no alcaldes elected by the citizens had any jurisdiction to deliver judicial possession. This was distinctly held in the case of Fremont v. United States, 58 U. S. 17 How. 542, 563 [15: 241, 248]. In answer to the objection there taken, that there was no survey or judicial possession of the land granted to Alvarado, under whom Fremont claimed, the court said: "The alcalde had no right to survey the land or deliver judicial possession, except by the permission of the American authorities. He could do nothing that would in any degree affect the rights of the United States to the public property; and the United States could not justly claim the forfeiture of the land for a breach of these conditions, without showing that there were officers in California, under the military government, who were authorized by a law of Congress to make this survey and deliver judicial possession to the grantee. It is certain that no such authority existed after the overthrow of the Mexican Government." The doctrine invoked by the defendants, that the laws of a conquered or ceded country, except so far as they may affect the political institutions of the new sovereign, remain in force after the conquest or cession until changed by him, does not aid their defense. That doctrine has no application to laws authorizing the alienation of any portions of the public domain, or to officers charged under the former government with that power. No proceedings affecting the rights of the new sovereign over public property can be taken except in pursuance of his authority on the subject. The cases in the Su- | preme Court of California and in this court, which recognize as valid grants of lots in the pueblo or city of San Francisco by alcaldes appointed or elected after the occupation of the country by the forces of the United States, do not militate against this view. Those officers were agents of the pueblo or city, and acted under its authority in the distribution of its municipal lands. They did not assume to alienate or affect the title to lands which was in the United States. Welch v Sullivan, 8 Cal. 165; White v. Moses, 21 Cal. 34; Merryman v. Bourne, 76 U. S. 9 Wall. 592 [19:683]. It follows from what is thus said that it would be a sufficient answer to the contention of the defendants, that the grant under which they claim to have acquired a perfect title conferred none. The grantees were not invested with such title, and could not be without an official delivery of possession under the Mexican Goverument; and such delivery was not had, and could not be had after the cession of the country, except by American authorities acting under a law of Congress. But independently of this consideration, and assuming that the title under the grant was perfect, the obligation of the grantee was none the less to present his claim to the board of land commissioners for examination. The ascertainment of existing claims was a matter of vital importance to the government in the execution of its policy respecting the public lands; and Congress might well declare that a failure to present a claim should be deemed an abandonment of it, and that the | lands covered by it should be considered a part of the public domain. Certain it is that a claimant presenting his claim to the board for examination and confirmation, in order that he might subsequently acquire a patent from the government, is bound by the adjudication of the board. After submitting his claim to its examination and judgment, he cannot afterwards be heard to say that in adjudicating upon his title the board erred, or that the Land Department in determining the boundaries of his claim erred, in order that he may claim, outside of the survey and patent, other lands which he considers covered by his grant. He cannot repudiate a jurisdiction to which he has appealed; and the estoppel extends to parties claiming under him. Boyle v. Hinds, 2 Sawy. 527; Cassidy v. Carr, 48 Cal. 339. In determining claims under Mexican grants the board of land commissioners was required, by the Act under which it was created, to be governed by the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo; the law of nations; the laws, usages and customs of the government from which the claim was derived; the principles of equity; and the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States, so far as they were applicable. And in United States v. Fossatt, 62 U. S. 21 How. 445, 449 [16: 186, 187], this court, in considering what was involved in the inquiry into the validity of a claim to land under that Act, said: "It is obvious that the answer to this question must depend, in a great measure, upon the state and condition of the evidence. It may present questions of the genuineness and authenticity of the title, and whether the evidence is forged or fraudulent; or, it may involve an inquiry into the authority of the officer to make a grant, or whether he was in the exercise of the faculties of his office when it was made; or, it may disclose questions of the capacity of the grantee to take, or whether the claim has been abandoned or is a subsisting title, or has been forfeited for a breach of conditions. Questions of each kind here mentioned have been considered by the court in cases arising under this law. But, in addition to these questions upon the vitality of the title, there may arise questions of extent, quantity, location, boundary, and legal operation, that are equally essential in determining the validity of the claim. In affirming a claim to land under a Spanish or Mexican grant to be valid within the law of nations, the stipulations of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, and the usages of those governments, we imply something more than that certain papers are genuine, legal and translative of property. We affirm that the ownership and possession of land of definite boundaries rightfully attach to the grantee." Trust relations respecting the property between the patentee and others may be enforced equally with such relations between him and others respecting any other property; but until the patent is set aside or modified by proceedings taken at the instance of the government, all the questions necessarily involved in the determination of a claim to land under a Spanish or Mexican grant, and in establishing its boundaries, are concluded by it in all courts and proceedings, except as against parties claiming by superior title, such as would enable them to |