The New York herald., 1876-09-07
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.

DECISIONS.
NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS. PossEssIoN-rRuE rITLE-FED-
kRAL QUESTION:
No. 543 Isabella McManus. Administratrix, vs q.
D. Sullivan. ct aLIn error to the Supreme Court Of
Caliiorna.-Terence b. McManus, under whom the
plaintiff claims, entered into the possession Of the
premises in controversy In 1854, or thereabouta He
continued his possession until his death, IN 1861, at or
about which time the defendants entered and held adj
versey to his estate until the commencement of this
action, in August 1867. At the time McManus
tered and al the time he in possession the city OF
San Francisco asserting title The property under
a Mexican Pueblo right, before the commission ap-
pointed under the act Of Congress providing for the
settlement of private land claims Ia California
and before the courts upon appeal decree W.
rendered in favor OF the CITY by the Circuit Court of
the United States May 16, 1865 From this decree
appeal taken to this court Pending action act
passed March S, 1865, entitled An act to acquire
the title TO certain lands within the corporate limits
OF the city of San Francisco IA Stat, Upon the
passage OF this act the appeal pending In this court
dismissed.
NcMunus and his representatives do not pretend to
connect themselves with the city title by any actual
grant The extent OF their claim is that their posses
SION was evidence Of their connection with the true
title, which at that time the city title Neither co
the defendants assert any claim under the true title
Their only defence Is possession adverse 10 the estate
OF McManus, but admitted TO be not adverse TO the
city Against this the plaintiff insists that, as the de-
PENDANTS did claim adversely TO all the world their
possession adyerscto him could not deeat bis right Of
action.
Thus 1t will be that two questions properly
presented to the Supreme Court OF California for ad
Indication, to wit
Frst-Does possession necessarily connect Itself
with tho title The absence OF proof to the
tTaryY Aud
Secoad-ls possession, within the meaning of the
statute OF mltatlc: California, adverse TO one who
claims tte II is not also adverse TO all tho wordY
II these questions were decided against the plaintiff
federal question could bo involved The record
without the opinion OF the Court shows that they
presented and does not show that any federal question
decided Under such circumstances It Is proper,
If it be at any time TO look the opinion OF the
Court, which has been sent here with the
record, to ascertain whether. In point OF
fact, the Court necessarily passed by the
intermediate questions and actually did decide as 10
the effect OF the Pueblo right end the treaty with tho
accompanying OF Congress- upon the title OF the
plainti. Looking to that we iud the Court did de-
eide that possession did MOI carry with II the presump
the pantf did hold under the city lte and
that the possession OF the defendants adverse 10
the plaintiff 1t bar to his right OF action,
though adverse to all the world. These
questions within the exclusive jurisdiction Of the State
courts and subject in any manner to re-exam-
nation. Thor decision against the plaintiff made II
unnecessary consider the proposed federal question
Thus il is that tue federal question was In TACT
not decided and IN the the Court below
Of the case such decision was not necessary. Wri,
dismissed
The Chief Justce delivered the opinion.