Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
ERROR to the Supreme Court of the Territory of Colorado.
This is an action by the defendant in error against Tameling, to recover possession of one hundred and sixty acres of land in the County of Costilla and Territory of Colorado. The tract is situate within the exterior boundaries of a larger one, known as the 'Costilla estate,' which was severed from the 'Sangre de Cristo grant.' The latter is known and designated as 'claim No. 14 of Charles Beaubien,' in the letter of the Secretary of the Interior to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, bearing date Feb. 11, 1857. With that claim were transmitted copies of the grant, order of prefect's court, notice of claim, deed of administrator, testimony, and report.
The case was sbmitted to the District Court on the following agreed statement of facts:--
The piece or parcel of land described in the plaintiff's declaration, and for the possession of which the plaintiff brings this suit, is now, and at the time of the commencement of this suit was, situate, lying, and being in the County of Costilla, in the Territory of Colorado, and, at the time of the commencement of this suit, and for a long time prior thereto, was in the actual possession of the said defendant, who, before the commencement of said suit, has made valuable improvements thereon.
The said piece or parcel of land is within the exterior boundaries of and forms a part of a larger tract or parcel of land claimed by the plaintiff in fee-simple, and known as the 'Costilla estate,' which said estate is bounded as follows, viz.: 'Beginning at a point one league below the confluence of the Rio Costilla and the Rio del Norte; thence up the Rio del Norte, on the eastern bank thereof, to its confluence with the Rio Culebra; thence easterly, following the southern bank of the Rio Culebra, to a point at or near the junction of the Rio Seco with the Rio Culebra; thence easterly to the Culebra Peaks; thence southerly to the boundary of the lands of Miranda and [ Tameling v. U.S. Freehold & Emigration Co. 93 U.S. 644 (1876)
Beaubien, and to a point at or near the road to Maxwell's thence westerly, following the mountain-ranges and along the boundary of the lands of Miranda and Beaubien, to a point about one league south of the Rio Costilla; and thence westerly to the place of beginning: containing by estimation five hundred thousand acres, or thereabouts.'
The said Costilla estate prior to the commencement of this suit formed a part and parcel of a yet larger tract or parcel of land, known as the 'Sangre de Cristo grant;' from said grant the said estate was segregated by the conveyance thereof by Martin Coates Fisher to the plaintiff, which said conveyance is hereinafter referred to; and which said grant, as an entirety (including said Costilla estate), is described as follows: 'Beginning at a point one Spanish league below the confluence of the Rio de Costilla and the Rio del Norte; thence up the Rio del Norte on the eastern bank thereof, to a point one league above the mouth of the Rio Trinchara; thence north-east to a point; thence along said mountain, south-east to a point established on the top of said mountain; thence south to the boun dary of the lands of Miranda and Beaubien; thence along said boundary to a point about one league south of the Rio de Cos tilla; and thence west to the place of beginning.'
The said Costilla estate is included in the Sangre de Cristo grant, whether reference be had to the description thereof given in the judicial certificate of possession, or in the petition of Charles Beaubien herein set forth.
The said Sangre de Cristo grant is known and designated as 'Claim No. 14 of Charles Beaubien' in the letter of the Secretary of the Interior of the United States, transmitting a transcript of the claim of the said Beaubien to said grant, to the Hon. N. P. Banks, Speaker of the House of Representatives, said letter bearing date Feb. 11, 1857, and which said letter, and all of the documents pertaining to said Sangre de Cristo grant therein referred to, are in the words and figures following, viz.:--
May Term, 1847
Narciso Beaubien, the co-grantee with Stephen L. Lee (alias Luis Lee), of said claim No. 14, died in the year 1847, without issue, whereby his father, the said Charles Beaubien, became the sole heir of whatever interest the deceased had in said land-grant or claim; that in the year aforesaid the said Lee also died; that afterwards, and on the fourth day of May, in the year 1848, the said Charles Beaubien acquired the interest of the said Lee in said land-grant, by a purchase and conveyance thereof in due form of law, from the administrator of the estate of the said Lee; that the said Charles Beaubien had and possessed all of the rights, titles, and interests, both in law and equity, in said grant, which, by the proceedings above set forth and referred to in the aforesaid letter of the Secretary of the Interior, were vested in the said Narciso Beaubien and the said Stephen L. Lee, at the time of their death as aforesaid.
The said Charles Beaubien retained his aforesaid interest in said grant until after the passage and approval of a certain act [93 U.S. 644, 660] of the Congress of the United States, entitled 'An Act to confirm certain private land-claims in the Territory of New Mexico,' approved June 21, 1860.
The claim designated in said act of Congress as claim No. 14 is the claim of the said Charles Beaubien to that tract of land hereinbefore described by its boundaries, and therein designated as the 'Sangre de Cristo grant,' and which tract of land includes that said 'Costilla estate.'
After the passage and approval of the said act of Congress, and on the seventh day of April, 1864, the right, title, and interest of the said Charles Beaubien in and to the said Sangre de Cristo grant, otherwise the said claim No. 14, was absolutely conveyed and vested in Hon. William Gilpin; and thereafter and prior to the fourteenth day of July, 1870, the said Gilpin conveyed the right, title, and interest in said grant by him so derived to one Morton Coates Fisher; that thereafter, and on the day and year last aforesaid, the said Morton Coates Fisher absolutely conveyed to the plaintiffs his right, title, and interest derived as aforesaid in and to that part and portion of the said grant or claim No. 14, generally known and herein designated as the 'Costilla estate,' the boundaries of which said estate, as taken from the said conveyance thereof, are hereinbefore given, and include the piece or parcel of land described in the plaintiff's declaration, and the possession of which is in controversy in this suit.
The said plaintiff has not conveyed or granted his title derived as aforesaid to the piece or parcel of land described in the declaration in this cause, nor the right of the possession thereof, to the defendant or other person; but has claimed the title to and possession of said land ever since the conveyance as aforesaid by the said Fisher to the plaintiff.
If the facts aforesaid, under the law, show that the plaintiff is entitled to the possession of the land described in the declaration in this case, then the finding of the court shall be for the plaintiff; if the said facts under the law show that the plaintiff is not entitled to such possession, then the finding of the court shall be for the defendant; and upon the finding of the court the proper judgment in ejectment for the plaintiff, or for the defendant, as the case may be, shall be entered of record in said court.
[93 U.S. 644, 661]
Judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff. It was affirmed by the Supreme Court of the Territory, and Tameling sued out this writ of error.
Argued by Mr. John A. Wills for the plaintiff in error, and by Mr. Matt. H. Carpenter and Mr. W. W. MacFarland for the defendant in error.
MR. JUSTICE DAVIS delivered t e opinion of the court.
The determination of this case depends upon the effect of the act of Congress 'to confirm certain private land claims in the Territory of New Mexico,' approved June 21, 1860. 12 Stat. 71. Did the act confirm the Sangre de Cristo grant to the extent of the exterior boundaries of the claim? If it did, the judgment below must be affirmed. If it did not, inasmuch as no specific portion of the land within those boundaries was severed from the remainder and confirmed to the claimant, the plaintiff below, who derives title under him, has not shown a right to the demanded premises, and the judgment must be reversed.
We have repeatedly held that individual rights of property, in the territory acquired by the United States from Mexico, were not affected by the change of sovereignty and jurisdiction. They were entitled to protection, whether the party had the full and absolute ownership of the land, or merely an equitable interest therein, which required some further act of the government to vest in him a perfect title. The duty of providing the mode of securing them and fulfilling the obligations which the treaty of cession imposed, was within the appropriate province of the political department of the government. In discharging it, Congress required that all titles to real property in California, whether inchoate or consummate, should undergo judicial examination. If a party failed to avail himself within a prescribed time of the provisions of the act of March 3, 1851, and prosecute his claim thereunder, it was completely barred, and the land covered by it reverted to the public domain. The California land-claims disposed of in this court were asserted in a direct proceeding against the United States. It became our duty, as it had been that of the board of commissioners and of the District Court, to decide on their validity, upon the documentary and other evidence incorporated in the [93 U.S. 644, 662] record. We were required to be governed by 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 this court, as far as they were applicable. Were we now exercising appellate jurisdiction over the proceedings of a court or officer specially appointed to determine the validity and extent of the grant in question, it would be our duty to either affirm or reverse the decision, pursuant to the rules prescribed for our guidance. But Congress legislated otherwise for the adjustment of land-claims in New Mexico. By the eighth section of the act of 1854, 10 Stat. 308, the duty of ascertaining their origin, nature, character, and extent was expressly enjoined upon the surveyor-general of that Territory. He was empowered for that purpose to issue notices, summon witnesses, administer oaths, and perform all necessary acts in the premises. He was directed to make a full report, with his decision, as to the validity or invalidity of each claim, under the laws, usages, and customs of the country before its cession to the United States. That report, according to a form to be prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior, was to be laid before Congress for such action as might be deemed just and proper.
It will thus be seen that the modes for the determination of land- claims of Spanish or Mexican origin were radically different. Where they embraced lands in California, a procedure, essentially judicial in its character, was provided, with the right of ultimate appeal by either the claimant or the United States to this court. No jurisdiction over such claims in New Mexico was conferred upon the courts; but the surveyor- general, in the exercise of the authority with which he was invested, decides them in the first instance. The final action on each claim reserved to Congress, is, of course, conclusive, and therefore not subject to review in this or any other forum.
It is obviously not the duty of this court to sit in judgment upon either the recital of matters of fact by the surveyor-general, or h decision declaring the validity of the grant. They are embodied in his report, which was laid before Congress for its consideration and action. We need only say that he distinctly sets forth that Luis Lee and Narciso Beaubien, Sept. 27, [93 U.S. 644, 663] 1843, petitioned the then civil and military governor of New Mexico 'for a grant of land in what is now the county of Taos, embracing the Costilla, Culebra, and Trinchera Rivers, including the Rito of the Indians, and Sangre de Cristo to its junction with the Del Norte River;' that the petition was referred by the governor to the prefect, with instructions to give the possession asked for by the petitioners; that they were put in possession with the boundaries contained in the petition, 'vesting in them, their children and successors, a title in fee to said lands.' After stating that, by the death of one of the grantees, his heir-at-law, Charles Beaubien, inherited the undivided half of the land, and that he acquired the remainder from the administrator of the other grantee, the surveyor-general reaches the conclusion that the grant is a good and valid one, and that a legal title vests in Charles Beaubien to the land embraced within the limits contained in the petition. The grant was approved, and recommended for confirmation by Congress.
Congress acted upon the claim 'as recommended for confirmation by the surveyor-general.' The confirmation being absolute and unconditional, without any limitation as to quantity, we must regard it as effectual and operative for the entire tract.
The plaintiff in error insists that, under the Mexican colonization laws in force when the grant was made, not more than eleven square leagues for each petitioner could be lawfully granted. As there were in the present instance but two petitioners, and the land within the boundaries in question is largely in excess of that quantity, the invalidity of the grant has been earnestly and elaborately pressed upon our attention. This was matter for the consideration of Congress; and we deem ourselves concluded by the action of that body. The phraseology of the confirmatory act is, in our opinion, explicit and unequivocal. In Ryan et al. v. Carter et al., supra, p. 78, we recognized and enforced, as the settled doctrine of this court, that such an act passes the title of the United States as effectually as if it contained in terms a grant de novo, and that a grant may be made by a law as well as by a patent pursuant to law.
Judgment affirmed.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Citation: 93 U.S. 644
Docket No: No. 14
Decided: October 01, 1876
Court: United States Supreme Court
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)