Wichita eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1886-1890, 1889-04-03
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.

| UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT,
| WASHINGTON, April 1.-The supreme
court today rendered decision in case No.
1870, Brigid o. Botiller ct al, plaintiffs In
error VS.. Domingo Dominguez; in error to
the supreme court Of the state of Califor-
mia. This is an action of ejectment
brought by Dominguez against Botiller
and others to recover possession of the
Rancho Las Virgenes, in Los Angeles
county, Cal. Dominguez's title is.derived
from grant made by Mexico in 1884. but
which grant has never. been presented for
confirmation to the board of land commits
sioners appointed uper the act Of congress
of March 8, 1851, to settle private land
claims in California, and no patent for
| the land has ever been issued by the Uni
ted States. 1t is coptended by Botillier
that the tractiis public land, and open to
entry under the general land laws. The
| lower court held that as Dominguez's title
! to the land from Mexico was perfect at the
time OF the acquisition Of California by
the United States he was not compelled to
| submit the grant for confirmation to the
board OF land commissioners, and that his
| failure to do so did not forfeit his grant
Judgment was, therefore, given against
Botillier. and from that Judgment an ap-
peal was taken to this court. In an elab-
OEdtc OpluAou Wy JuSLlCc Gu6 bu-
preme court holds that the lower court
was in error. and therefore reverses
court Of California. The court
Gays there is nothing in the
language Of the statute of 1851 creating
the board of land commissioners to show
that claims already perfected under the
Mexican law were to be excluded from tho
jurisdiction of the commission. Nowhere
in the statutes is there hint or attempt
at any distinction as to the claims to be
presented between these which are perfect
and those which are imperfect. 1t was
not the purpose of the statute to settle
claims to the same lands. TIE object was
to seperate and distinguish the lands
which the United States owned from those
which belonged either equitably or
legally to private parties under grant
from Spain or Mexico. It was equally
important to the object which tte
Of ntea s shas aa ne el.ms Sndss
perfect grants from the Mexican govern
}mant should be established as that imper-
feet claims should be establl or reject
ed SO that the government might be en-
abled out Of all its vast domain to say,
This is;my property" and;that the Mexi-4A
can claimant who had ajust claim might
say, "This{s mine.
In conclusion the court said: "There can
be no doubt of the proposition that no title:
to sland in California dependent upon.
Spanish or Mexican grants can be of anE3
validity which has not been submitted to
the board provided for that purpose in the
act of 1851, and the Judgment of the SUI
'preme court OF California is accordingly
reversed"
The opinionin this case, it is saids viii .
affect the title to great quantity Of Cali I
fornia lands.
The following. other. business was trans
acted today in The United States supreme.
court:
No. ISL Parbp's Park Silver Mining
appeal from the supreme court or the
territory ofsutah; decree affirmed, with
costs. Opinion by. Mr.. Justice Lamar
No. 159. Isaac S. Lyon. appellant, VS.
John B. Alley, appeal from the supreme
court of the District of Columbia; decree
affirmed, with costs; opinion by Mr.. JUS
tice Lamar.
No. 1913. Nelson Williamson, collector,
etc, plaintiff in error, vs.. the State of New
Jersey, ct al; in error from the supreme
court of New Jersey; Judgment affirmed,
with costs; opinion by Mr.. Justice Blach-
ford.
of c. A. Arthur, etc.; In error to the cir
cult court of the United States for the
southern district of New York; Judgment
reversed with costs and cause remanded,
with instructions to set aside the verdict
and to order a new trial. Opinion by Mr..
Justice Gray.
error, VS. VIM. Nichols; in error to the cir
cult court of the. United States for the
western district Of Missouri: judgment re-
versed, costs in this court and in the court
below to be paid by the plaintiff in error
and cause remanded, with instructions to
remand the case to the state court. Opinion
by Justice Harlan.
No. 14OS. Fred B. Smith ct AL, County
commissioners, etc, appellants, VS.. John
E. Adams; appeal from the supreme court
of the territory of Dakota: dismissed for
the want of Jurisdiction. Opinion by Mr..
Justice Field.
No ~. Elon A. Marsh ct al, appellant,
No. S. Nichols Shepard & Go. Ia cor
poration, appellant, VS.. Elon A. Marsh ct
al motion to tax amount advanced by
appellees in No ~ and appellant in No. 95
as part Of the costs recoverable by them
granted. Announced by Mr.. Chief Justice
Fuller.
No. 1853. George G. Dent ct al. appel
lants, VS.. Isaac A. Ferguson ct al; motion
to Iemit certain costs granted. Announced
by Mr. Chief Justic Fuller.
No. 1883 The United States, appellant,
VS.. the Missouri, Kansas and Texas Rail
way Company; motion to advance denied
without prejudice to the renewal at the
next term. Announced by Mr.. Chief JUS
tice Fuller.
No. 1l13 The Chicago, Milwaukee and
st. Paul Railway Company, plaintiff in
error VS.. the State of Minnesota ex rel.
the Railroad and Warehouse Commits
sionerS.
No. 1923. The Minneapolis Eastern
Railway Company, appellant, vs.. the State
of Minnesota ex rel, the Railroad and |
vance denied without prejudice to their |
renewal at the next term. Announced by |
Mr.. Chief Justice Fuller.
No. 1422. Miller, plaintiff in error, VS.. |
Ernst Ammon; motion TO advance denied. |
by Mr.. Chief Justice Fuller.
plaintiff in error, vs.. Peter Campbell ct |
al; ordered for reargument before a full |
bench. Announced by Mr.. Chief Justice !
Fuller.
No. 1175. The Baltimore and Potomac
Railroad Company, plaintiff in error, VS.. |
Thaddeus A. Hopkins, in error TO the |
supreme court of the District of Columbia; |
Opinion by Mr.. Chief Justice Fuller.
No. ls2. The district of Columbia,
plaintiff in error, vs. Lawrence E. Cannon |
No. l63 The District Of Columbia, |
plaintiff in error, VS.. Clinton H. Emerson,
in error to the supreme court of the Dis |
trict of Columbia; dismissed for want of
jurisdiction. Decision by Mr.. Chief Jus |
tice Fuller.
The chief justice announced the follow
ing order: The reporter having repre- |
sented that owing to the number of decis-
ions at the team it will be impractible TO |
put the reports In one volume, II is there |
fore, now here ordered that he publish al |
x-0f,, H. h ny