Los Angeles daily herald., 1875-01-31
IMPORTANT LAND DECISION.
II. s. LAND OFFICE

Hon. S. S. BmdeH, Commissioner
General Land Office, Washington,
D. e.:
SIR: herewith transmit the testi
mony, with my opinion thereon, in
the matter Of the application Of Henry
Il. Hazard to purchase under the pro-
visions of the 7th section of the act Of
July %, 1865, certain lands alleged to
have been rejected from the final sur
vey OF the Pueblo of Los Angeles,
Mexican grant; said lands being situ-
ated in Township South, Range IA
West, $. B. NJ, and described in petit
tion of applicant as follows, to wit;
Lots 8, 4, 5 and 4, block Is, and lots /
and in block q of city donation lots
of the city OF Los Angeles.
The application herein was filed
January l3, 1872, and hearing COM
menced May 20, 1874. The documen-
tary evidence shows that on April 2S,
1855, the city OF Los Angeles in its
corporate capacity, decided to A. M.
Hazard, Geo. Hazard and Daniel Haz-
ard, lots 3, 1, and q of block IS of city
donation lots, and Oh June 70, 1855, to
James II. Barton, tot 2, block u, and
June 20. 1855, to A. M. Hazard, lot l,
block 27. On June |, 1860, said Dan'l
Hazard and Geo Hazard decided their
interest ia said lots to Henry Il. Haz-
ard, the applicant. That on tho first
day OF November, 1885, James r. Bar
ton decided said lots No. 2, block 81, to
A. NJ. Hazard, and on March 20, 1866,
said a. NJ. Hazard conveyed tn Henry
L. Hazard, the applicant, said lots one
and two, block "a together with his
interest in lots3, 1, 5 and 6, block %.
1T appears that the Board of u. S.
Land Commissioners, February, 1856,
Los Angeles four (4) square leagues OF
land, rejecting the land embraced in
said application. 1t is argued by
counsel Tor conte,tants that applicant,
having purchased long after the said
tract had been by ycompetent authority
adjndged to form no part OF the city
lands of Los Angeles, cannot be con-
sidered u purchase IN good faith.
Under tile doctrine laid down by the
Honorable Secretary Of the Interior,
February nth, 1878, in he case of the
California and Oregon Railroad Com
pany vs.. Sanford h.. Wilson, the right
to purchase under the 7th section OF
said act OF July 23, 1866, is an aliena-
BILE right, and il Is therefore only nec-
essary tO consider i'm this connection
the question as to whether the grant
ors or applicant were competent under
the law TO convey such right.
The testimony shows that said
grantors made purchase of the said
tract in good faith and for
a valuable consideration Of u
Mexican grantee prior to the
rejection thereof from the final
survey and pr,or TO July %, 1916, and
were therefore aside from the ques-
ton of possession, use and improve
ment of said tract of the class of per-
sons entitled to the remedial provis-
ions thereof. Pertinant, however, to
the questions of good faith of appli-
cant III making purchase Of the said
tract aud his subsequent acts OF owner
ship under said purchase, cannot
disregard the fact that the deeds under
which Lots ! and 2, Block u, were ac-
quired, were not recorded for period
OF nearly fourteen (l4) years subse-
quent to their executiOn; that his
deeds to the remaining lots have
never heen recorded, and that without
legal notice OF his claim thereto Others
were permitted togo into possession Of
different PORTIONS of said tract and cul-
tivate and improve the same, and
that he did not present and urge his
claim to n final determination within
reasonable time.
1t only remains, however, to con-
slider the question as to whether APP
plicant has maintained such posses
sion of and exercised such dominion
over the said premises as it is contem-
plated by the said act.
1t is shOwnb by the testimony Of APP
plicant that he was not in the possess
sion OF lot 2, of block q later than 1854,
and that his possession of the remain-
ing portions of the tract subsequent
| thereto has been constructive and not
actual.
The character of possession required
by the seventh section OF said act Is
actual personal possession, definite
and unmistakable up to the date of
| the passage thereof.
1t does not appear that applicant
was ousted or denied the possession of
said premises by other parties, but
that he voluntarily abandoned the
same and permitted the decadence and
removal of the improvements there
| from.
He has not therefore,i in my opinion,
remained in the actual possession OF
said tract and cultivated and improved
the same within the meaning OF said
act. Wherefore, in view of all the
facts and the promises fully consider
| ed, l am of the opinion that the said
| application should be denied.
Very respectfully, s.
| ALFRED JAMES,