The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1889-04-02

WASHINGTON, April 1.-The supreme
court to-day rendered decision in case 221
Lizzie Buxton and Anna J. VoOhes, plain
tiffs in error, VS.. Hattie L. Travers, ct al,
in error. to the supreme court of California.
The case of plaintiffs rests upon u conten-
ton that their father acquired by occupa-
Son of unsurvcyed lands United States
right of presumption (which at his death
descended TO plaintiffs under the laws of
the United States. The court holds that
the contention is not well taken. Settle
ment upon public lands in advance of pub
lid surveys, the court says, is al
lowed TO parties who intend, when
the surveys are made, to apply for
their purchase. If within d certain time
after the surveys ana return OF the plats
to locate to the land officers, the settler has
taken certain steps required by the law, he
acquires for the first time the right Of pre-
emption. that is. right to purchase II IN
preference to others. Until then he has 10
estate which he could devise by viii or
which in case of death, would pass to his
heirs-at-law. 1t has heretofore been
held by the court that the OccU-
patton and Improvement OF public lands,
with view to pre-emptlOn. do not confer
vested right in the lands so occupied. The
United States enters into no obligation that
lands occupied shall never be put up for
sale, but simply declares that in case they
are offered for sale the occupants shall have
the privilege of purchasing them before al
others. The Judgment of the lower court
against plaintiffs rights Is affirmed. The
opinion is by Judge Field.
An opinion was also rendered in No 1910,
Zeigido Bott Her ct al. plaintiffs IN error,
versus Domingo Dominique, in error 70
supreme court Of California.
This is an action OF ejectment brought
against BOtteller and others tore cover Dos
session of Las EirginneS, Los Angeles, Z la.
Dominiguez' title is derived from the grant
made bV Mexico in 1884, but which grant
has never been presented for confirmation
to the board of land commissioners ap
pointed under the act of Congress OF
March g. 1851, TO settle private claims IN
California, and no patent for the land has
ever been issued by the United States
A. is contended by BOtteller that the tract
ispublic land and open To entry under the
general land laws. Tie lower court held
that as Dominiguez's tue TO the land in
Mexico was perfect at the time OF the acqui-
sitiOn of California by the United States,
he was not compelled to submit his grant
for confirmation to the board OF l2nd COM
missioners, and that his failure to do so did
not forfeit his grant. The judgment was
therefore, given against BOteller,s and from
that judgment, appeal was taken to this
court.
In an elaborate opinion by Justice
Miller. the supreme court holds that the
flower court was in error and therefore
' reyerses the Judgment of the supreme
court of California. The court says there
is nothing in the language of the statute OF
1851 creating board of land commissioners
TO show that its proceedings were to be
limited to settlement of implicit and in
choate claims, and that claims already per
fected under the Mexican law were
TO be excluded from the jurisdiction of
the commission, that nowhere in the
statute is there a hint of an attempt at any
distinction as TO the claims to be presented
between those which are perfect and those
which are imperfect. 1t was not the pur-
nose of the statute to settle titles between
private citizens making claim to the same
Lands. The object was 10 separate and
distinguish lands which the United
States owned from those which
belonged either equitably or legally to
priyate parties under a grant from
Snain or Mexico 1t was equally important
fGfhe object which the United States had
inNhe passage of it that claims under per
feet grants from the Mexican government
should be established, as that imperfect
claims should be established or rejected, so
that the government might be enabled, out
of ali its vast domain, to say, This Is my
property.n and that Mexican claimants
wlo had a Just claim against IL could say
CT &c mine -