ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub

regular terms of the court,5 an official stenographer, an attorney, to represent the United States in this court, and an interpreter and translator "skilled in the Spanish and English languages." The United States marshal for any district or territory in which the court is held, is required to serve the process of the court, and "to attend the court in person, or by deputy when so directed by the court."9

§ 461. Time and place of holding the court. The sessions of the court are to be held, at the discretion of the court,1 within the States of Colorado, Wyoming, and Nevada, and in the Territories of New Mexico, Arizona, and Utah. Notice of the time and place of holding sessions must be given by publication, in Spanish and English, in one newspaper at the capital of the State or Territory in which the session is to be held, "once a week for two successive weeks, the last of which publications shall not be less than thirty days next preceding" the time of the holding such session. Sessions may be adjourned

from time to time by the court without publication. "Immediately upon the organization of said court the clerk shall cause notices thereof, and of the time and place of the first session thereof, to be published for a period of ninety days in one newspaper at the City of Washington, and in one published at the capital of the State of Colorado and of the Territories of Arizona and New Mexico; such notices shall be published in the Spanish and English languages, and shall contain the substance of this act." 4

§ 462. Jurisdiction of the Court of Private Land Claims. The Court of Private Land Claims is a court of exclusive and limited jurisdiction. All previous legislation in reference to Spanish and Mexican grants in the territory covered by this act is repealed, as follows: "That sec. 8 of the Act of Congress approved July 22nd, 1854,' entitled 'An Act to establish the offices of Surveyor-General of New Mexico, Kansas, and Nebraska, to grant donations to actual settlers therein, and for other purposes,' and all acts amendatory or in extension

5 26 St. at L. 854, § 1. 626 St. at L. 854, § 1. 726 St. at L. 854, § 2.

8 26 St. at L. 854, § 2.

926 St. at L. 854, § 1.

§ 461. 126 St. at L. 854, § 1.
226 St. at L. 854, § 1.

326 St. at L. 854, § 1.

4 26 St. at L. 854, § 3.

§ 462. 110 St. at L. 308, ch. 103.

thereof, or supplementary thereto, and all acts or parts of acts inconsistent with the provisions of this act, are hereby repealed."2

The jurisdiction of this court is limited to the hearing and decision of private land claims which are (1) derived from some Spanish or Mexican grant, concession, warrant, or survey; and (2) located within the States of Colorado, Nevada, or Wyoming, or the Territories of New Mexico, Arizona, or Utah. In such claims the court has power to determine all questions relating to (a) the title of the land the subject of the case; (b) its location, extent, and boundaries; (c) any other matters necessary to finally disposing of the claim; (d) and by a final decree to settle the validity of the title and the boundaries of the grant presented for adjudication, and any other questions "properly arising between the claimants or other parties in the case and the United States."

This jurisdiction is applicable to the five following classes of

cases:

First. To those which "at the date of the passage of this act have not been confirmed by act of Congress or otherwise finally decided upon by lawful authority, and which are not already complete and perfect," upon the application of the claimant.5

Second. To those which were "complete and perfect at the date when the United States acquired sovereignty," provided the holder of such grant voluntarily petitions the court to investigate and adjudicate his title."

Third. Whenever the claimant or possessor of lands within the States or Territories to which this act applies, under a private grant from Spain or Mexico, has failed to come in voluntarily under the provisions of this act, and in the opinion of the head of the Department of Justice the public interests or the rights of any claimants require an investigation of such claim, the United States may institute proceedings against the title or boundaries of land so held."

Fourth. Whenever there is a question as to "validity of any city lot, town lot, village lot, farm lot, or pasture lot claimed directly or mediately under any grant for the establishment of

226 St. at L. 854, § 15. 326 St. at L. 854, § 6. 426 St. at L. 851, § 7.

5 26 St. at L. 854, § 6.
626 St. at L. 854, § 8.
726 St. at L 854, § 8.

any city, town, or village by the Spanish or Mexican government." 8

Fifth. When any of the lands decreed to the claimant under the provisions of this act have been disposed of by the United States to any other person than the claimant, notwithstanding such decree, the court may render judgment in favor of the claimant for the value of the land so disposed of, exclusive of betterments, not exceeding $1.25 per acre, which judgment shall be a charge upon the treasury of the United States." Limitations on Jurisdiction.-The following limitations upon the jurisdiction and powers of the court are imposed by the act: 10 1. No claim shall be allowed unless the title is regularly and lawfully derived from Spain, Mexico, or a Mexican State, and is one which the United States is bound under its treaty stipulations, or otherwise, to respect. 2. Nor shall one be allowed that interferes with any just Indian title." 3. Nor has the court jurisdiction to confirm any claim to gold, silver, or quicksilver mines, with certain exceptions.12 4. Nor has it jurisdiction in the face of a congressional confirmation. 5. Nor do its decrees affect the rights of private parties between each other, being conclusive only between the United States and the parties claiming an interest in the land. 6. Nor do its decrees operate to make the United States liable in any respect for such grants, being a release only by the United States of such title as it may have.15 7. Nor can the court confirm any incomplete grant for a greater quantity than eleven square leagues of land.16 8. Nor can the court confirm any grant unless all the conditions of the grant have been complied with strictly."7

826 St. at L. 854, § 11; Townsend v. Greeley, 5 Wall. 326; U. S. v. Pico, 5 Wall 536; Grisar v. McDowell, 6 Wall. 363; Lynch v. Bernal, 9 Wall. 315.

926 St. at L. 854, § 14. 10 26 St. at L. 854, § 13.

11 U. S. v. Ritchie, 17 How. 525. 12 U. S. v. Castillero, 2 Black, 17. 13 Const., art. IV, § 1; Tameling v. U. S. Freehold & E. Co., 93 U. S. 644; Maxwell Land Grant Case, 121 U. S. 325; Ibid., 122 U. S. 365. See Las Animas L. G. Co. v. U. S., 179 U. S.

13

201; U. S. v. Conway, 175 U. S. 60; Real de Dolores del Oro v. U. S., 175 U. S. 71.

14 Castro v. Hendricks, 23 How. 438; U. S. v. Grimes, 2 Black, 610; U. S. v. Morillo, 1 Wall. 706. See also § 8; Beard v. Federy, 3 Wall. 478.

15 26 St. at L. 854, ch. 539, § 13, subdivision 6. See also § 8 of same act.

16 But courts have no jurisdiction to limit a grant when confirmed by Congress. See cases under note 13, supra.

17 McMicken v. U. S., 97 U. S. 204

9. Nor can the court confirm, in the case of completed grants, showing perfect title, any more land than a perfect title may be found to cover.18 10. Nor any lands disposed of by the United States,19 although they might have been originally a part of a valid grant or claim,20 and been so decreed to be by this court. The Act of 1851" contemplated nothing more than the separation of private lands from the public domain." Where the government was not shown to be a party in interest, it was held that the court had no jurisdiction under the Act of 1851.23 That act did not settle disputes between private parties.24 It was not necessary that a grant should be in writing to give jurisdiction under the Act of March 3, 1851. Jurisdiction may rest on the general law of the land.25 The Court of Private Land Claims can only confirm legal titles; and not claims of imperfect obligation even when they are of a similar character to claims which Congress 2 or the Mexican government has confirmed.

§ 463. Parties.-" Any person or persons, or corporation or their legal representatives,"1 claiming lands falling within the jurisdiction of this court, may bring a petition in writing to the court setting forth the claim, whether such claim was complete or incomplete upon the acquisition of this territory by the United States. The claim for a city, town, village, etc., grant must be presented by the corporate authorities of the city or village, if under a grant for the establishment of a city or village by the Spanish or Mexican authorities, but if the land upon which the city or village is situated "was originally granted

Proof that the Mexican authorities prevented the performance of the conditions does not establish a waiver of the same. Cessna v. U S., 169 U. S. 165.

18 26 St. at L. 854, $ 8.

19 26 St. at L. 854, § 8.

20 26 St. at L. 854, § 14.

U. S. 66; U. S. v. Santa Fe, 165 U. S.
675; U. S. v. Sandoval, 167 U. S. 278.
But see Ely v. U. S., 171 U. S. 220.
27 Crespin v. U. S., 168 U. S. 208.
§ 463. 126 St. at L. 854, §§ 6, 8;
Hunnicutt v. Peyton, 102 U. S. 333;
U. S. v. Covilland, 1 Black, 339; U. S.
v. Grimes, 2 Black, 610; U. S. v.

21 Castro v. Hendricks, 23 How. 438. Estudillo, 1 Wall. 710; U. S. v. Pat

22 9 St. at L. 631, ch. 41.

23 U. S. v. Morillo, 1 Wall. 706. 24 Castro v. Hendricks, 23 How. 438; U. S. v. Grimes, 2 Black, 610.

25 Beard v. Federy, 3 Wall. 478. 26 Rio Arriba L. & C. Co. v. U. S., 167 U. S. 298; Bergere v. U. S., 168

terson, 15 How. 10; Alviso v. U. S., 8 Wall. 337; U. S. v. Repentigny, 5 Wall. 211; U. S. v. Sutter, 21 How. 170; U. S. v. Reading, 18 How. 1; Palmer v. Low, 98 U. S. 1; U. S. v. Ritchie, 17 How. 525; McMicken v. U. S., 97 U. S. 204.

to an individual, the claim shall be presented by, or in the name of said individual or his legal representatives." The United

States may bring a petition against the holder of any private land claim if such holder has not voluntarily come into this court. This petition is to be brought by the Attorney of the United States in this court, by the direction of the head of the Department of Justice, "whenever in his opinion the public interests or the rights of any claimant shall require it."3 It is the duty of the court to protect the interests of minors,

2 26 St. at L. 854, § 11.

326 St. at L. 854, § 8; U. S. v. Throckmorton, 98 U. S. 61; U. S. v. White, 23 How. 249.

The United States are proper parties to a suit to confirm a claim covering pueblo lands granted to Indians. U. S. v. Conway, 175 U. S. 60. The following decisions under former acts may be useful as affording precedents by analogy. U.S. v. Cambuston, 20 How. 59. Grantees of an original claimant may prosecute the claim in the name of their grantor. U. S. v. Sutter, 21 How. 170.

Assignees. The assignee of the whole of the land granted could properly present the claim in his own name, but when the grant was divided among a number of vendees the original claimant should do this. U. S. v. Grimes, 2 Black, 610. The claimant of an unlocated grant may sell it, and his grantee takes his rights. Hunnicutt v. Peyton, 102 U. S. 333. A confirmation inures to an assignee by way of estoppel. Stoddard v. Chambers, 2 How. 284; U. S. v. Patterson, 15 How. 10. An assignee is bound by the decree of confirmation. U. S. v. Covilland, 1 Black, 339. After the issue of patent, an assignee can assert his rights against the original grantee in the ordinary tribunals. Ibid. A stranger to the title cannot ask a court to decree upon a claim. Parties prosecuting a title must show some real interest. McMicken v. U. S., 97 U.S. 204. When the United States

have no interest in the matter, the parties must have recourse to the regular courts, and the case will be remanded. U. S. v. White, 23 How. 249. The alienees of an original grantee may intervene to protect their rights after the execution of a survey in accordance with the decree of confirmation. U. S. v. Covilland, 1 Black, 339. But a mandamus will not be granted for the intervention of one Mexican claimant in the proceedings of another. White's Adm'r v. U. S., 1 Black, 501. The location of a confirmed Mexican claim will not be disturbed at the instance of a third person, who shows no title to the land, the government and claimant being satisfied. Dehon v. Bernal, 3 Wall. 774. See also U. S. v. Estudillo, 1 Wall. 710; U. S. v. Patterson, 15 How. 10. Objection cannot be taken to an intervenor for the first time in the Supreme Court, after he has been allowed to intervene by order of the court of first instance. Alviso v. U. S., 8 Wall. 337: U. S. v. Estudillo, 1 Wall. 710. A third party cannot raise the question of fraud as between the grantor and grantee, in ejectment proceedings. Field v. Seabury, 19 How. 323, 332. There is no right to intervene unless this is done in the court of first instance. U. S. v. Patterson, 15 How. 10. See also U. S. v. Innerarity, 19 Wall. 595; U. S. v. Sutter, 21 How. 170, 182; Brown v. Evans, 8 Saw. 502, 510.

« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »