Daily Los Angeles herald., 1881-02-02
d untIl the defendsnt entered


nor, bases his claim to said lands,
and in no other way than, by .
deed to the same from w. 8. Rose
Grams and the above procedure
herein found.
"That the township plats, includ-
ing said lands, were. on the 2lst
day of November, 1871, filed for the
first time In the United States Dis.
trict Land offics, at Los Angeles,
California.
"That, at the time of making
said application and selection, the
Rancho La Liebre, within the
limits Of which the w. / Of section
10, 7. 9 n, II. II W., 8. B. M. was
situated, which was the basi is OF
said application aud selection in
finding second above, had been fin.
ally surveyed ami located by the
proper authorities OF the United
States, and said lands were, at the
time Of said application and selec.
ton, actually lost to the State Of
California as school lands by rea-
son of such final survey.
"That said defendant, George w.
Frasher, was duly.qualifled pre-.
emption settler; and fully entitled
to the privileges of the presumption
laws of the United States, and set
tied upon said tract of land claimed
by him, as above found, in good
faith as such settler, and performed
thereon all acts required by said
prescription laws to entitle person
tO pra am mr. puhiio land
"That on the Sth day Of June,
1876. the defendant applied to the
Register and Receiver of the U. 8.
District Land Office at Los Ange.
les, Cal. to file his declaratory state-
ment in due form upon said land,
as required by the laws of the
United States. That, at the time Of
making said application, the de.
PENDANT was living on said land
with his family and had made val
liable improvements thereon. That
on said Sth day OF June, 1875, said
defendant did tender and deposit
his declaratory statement in due
form with the Register and Re-
ceiver OF the proper u. s. District
Land Office, together with all legal
fees therefor.
That afterwards, to-wit: on or
about the 18th day of December,
1875. said defendant made the re.
quisite and usual proofs before the
Register and Receiver of said u. 3.
District Land office of his qualific
lions and his settlement, and his
improvements on said tract Of land,
aud rendered said Register and Re.
ceiver. and at the same time ten
dered the full Government price
therefor, with all legal fees and
commissions, and requested that
he be permitted to enter said land,
at said Land Office, under said pre-
emption laws, and that said Reg.
lister and Receiver refused to APP
prove said claim OF the defendant
and refused to permit him to enter
said lands under said presumption
laws and refused to receive the
purchase price tendered.and still so
refuses.
"rhat said defend mt duly ap-
pealed from said action of the Reg.
lister and Receiver, and that said
claim is now pending before the
U. S. General Land Office.
"That OIL the - day of -, 1879.
said defendant duly applied to the
proper authorities of the State of
California to purchase said land
from the State, and that said ap-
plication is now pending aud unde-
ternined."
agree with the Court below in
its conclusions Of law as follows:
THAT none of said lands thus In.
cluded within the boundaries or ex.
terror limits of the private grant,
to-wit, the Rancho Sausal Redondo,
were public lands within the mean
Ing of the acts of Congress grant,
ing lands to the State OF California
as school lands or as State indem.
nifty lands, until the said claim
covering them was finally decided
to be invalid, and all of such lands
were thus excluded from any mode
OF requirement. They were not In
q condition to be applied for or ac-
quired by individuals or selected
by the State, and that the attempt
of the Surveyor.General to remove
the reservation and to extend the
public survey over said lands, and
the filing of township plats includ-
ing the same in 1868, was without
authority of the law and was
wholly void. The evidence does
not warrant the conclusion that the
survey of the Rancho Sausal Re.
dondo in 1868 was made by Deputy
Hansen under the eighth section
of the act of Congress, 1885; on the
contrary, the evidence shows that
said survey was not made under
said act or by authority thereof.
THAT the defendant is In such
privity with the United States, the
paramount source of title, as en-
ables him to attack the patent is
sued to plaintiffs grantors by the
State for the land in controversy,
and upon which plaintiff rests b Q
title in an action at law or equity. d
THAT the selection of said land
was void, as having been mace
without authority of law, and BE-.
ing void, the State had no title
which it could convey to plaintiff o
grantor; that said land was not ip-
tended to be granted by any law II
Congress-, and the listing Of said
lands to the State by the Commits.
sioner of the General Land Office
was null and void, and the patents
from the State for said lands are
void, and the plaintiff has no title
to said land or any part thereof.
"That an invalid State selection
is no bar to the rights of q pre-
emption or homestead settler, and
that the tender of proof and offer
OF payment by the defendant for
said land placed him in the same
relation as IL the defendant had
been permitted by the Land Office
to do what in this respect was of.
fered to be DONE"
The judgment of the Courts be.
low In favor of defendants, and the
orders denying motion for new