Los Angeles daily herald., 1889-08-15
THE DECISION.
Justice Field on the Las
BOlsas Cases.
THE SETTLERS ARE 0USTED
The Case Reviewed From A to lizard
and all the Facts Brought
out Lueidly.

portions OF the Rancho Las Boleas, II
the southeastern part Of the county. A
times the settlers, becoming weary O
the laws delay, were on the point OF re
sorting to shotguns to quiet title to VIA
they regarded as their lands. One of the
cases is what is known as that of Henry
Dolbiac Harrison against Peter Ulricl
and others. This involved the title t.
over $4,000 acres of the ranch, and em
braced the homes of nearly 200 settlers
This case has been pending in the United
States courts for some time past, anC
last week it came up before Judge Field
On Monday last he handed down the
following decision in favor of the plain
tiff; or, in other words, deciding that the
settlers were holding their lands undel
o title not worth a straw. There are 6
great many other cases which this opin
ion virtually settles, and there are many
more homes involved in the same fate
The decision covers the title to severa
others of the largest ranches down to 6
certain date. So very important is the
decision in all its bearings that the
HERALD publishes it in full:
CIRCUIT Court OF THE UNITED STATES, NINTI
CIRCUIT, SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
HENRY D. HARRISON VS.. PETER uLRIcH EFT AL
This is an action for the possession of lant
In the county OF Los Angeles. California
amounting to 1928 acres and fraction o
an acre. It is submitted to the court withou
the parties. The complaint alleges ownership
in fee of the demanded premises by the plain
tsff. on the !st day Of July, 1856, and th'
wrongful and continued exclusion Of him
damage Of ten thousand dollars $40 ,000j The
answers controvert all the allegations of the
tatone In bar Of the action. No testimony was
0nered In support of this plea, and it must
therefore be considered as abandoned.
sesses to the land by two patents of the United
States, each for an undivided half of tract
known as the Rancho Las Bolsas one issued
the other issued August ~, 1877. to Juan Jose
Nurillo and his wife. Both of these patents
embrace the demanded premises.
against whom the action has not been dis
missed. were In posses sion of the premises at
the commencement OF the action. and claim
title to them through patent OF the United
States issued December 81, 1888, to Bernardino
Yorba and others, for a tract known as the
Rancho Santiago de Santa Ana. This patent
also embraces the demanded premises
As the patents of both parties coversthe land,
the controversy can only be determined by
reference to the concessions OF the former Gov
crnnent or by the proceedings for their recog-
milton and confirmation taken under our Gov
eminent. The patents are based upon the sup.
p0eed validity of the asserted title or equity of
the patentees when the jurisdiction of Mexico
passed to the United States: Whoever previ-
ously possessed the better right to the posses
sion of the lands would have been maintained
by the Government of that bountry In his claim
against Contestants. And those who have sue.
ceeded to that better right are entitled under
Gnvarnmpnt the liz q nrOtpatiou
patents were not Issued until those concessions
had been recognized by the tribunals of the
United States as genuine and as comforting q
right or equity npoon the respective claimants,
which was entitled to protection under the act
OF March 3, 1851. 1t was not the purpose OF
that act or Of the proceedipgsluuderi it, to sup
erfede rights or equities relating to landa con-
ierred by the former Government, but to con-
firm and perfect them by giving the hol Ter
such record or documentary evidence Of their
validity as would enable him to enforce them
in the courts of the country. We must, there
fore, look into the character of those conces'
sions, and If they furnish no solution of the
matter in contention, we must consider the
effect Of proceedings had before the tribunals
of the United States upon their respective pre-
tensions. (HenshaD v. Bisset, 16 Wall, 255,
266.) Nearly all the original documents issued
by the former Government, or certified copies
well as attempted trsnslations of them. These
translations, 1t is true, are In bad English and
are often inaccurste We can not, however
be misled by them. for we have the original, oil
copies. to which we can refer to verify or cor
rect them.
Turning to those concessions and looking
first to those produced on behalf of the plsin
tiff in support of his contention, We find the
facts to be substantially as follows:
In 1884 one Manuel Nieto, subject of Spain
ernor or comandante Of California, under the
Spanish crown. concession of some kind re-
lating to large tract OF land within the pres.
ent county of Los Angeles, embracing about
thirtv.threa (2f1 This
sion 10 u OF in evidence, ano we are only made
acquainted with its character by other docu-
ments OF admitted genuinepess before us. It
gave to Nieto permission to occupy the land
but from what subsequently took place it is
evident that 1t did not purport to pass the ii lie
70 him. II the
grant, vesting the fee or ownership in him
Under the concession Nieto entered upon the
land and continued in its occupation until hi.
documents that Nieto left surviving him four
children: Jose Antonio, Juan Jose, Manuels
and Antonio Mario, who continued In posses
sion of the land after his death and that il
1882 two of these. Jose Antonio and Antonis
Maria, died, leaving widows surviving them
In the following year, 1888, on the 26th day o.
July, one Luciano Grijalva, representing the
ton to Jose Figueroa, then Superior folitica
Chief of the Territory Of Upper California, il
yhieh ne tces the tb Of
session of the land, his death. and the subse
quent uninterrupted occupation by his heirs
and prayed, in order that they m ght enjoy the
favor conceded to their father, that separs te
titles be given to each of the m for the several
parts corresponding with those designated on
an accompanying map, as follows: The tract
OF Santa Gertrudes, to DOna Josefa Gotta and her
children. as widow of the deceased Antonio
Maria N eto; the tract of Las Bolsas to Dona
Catarina Ruiz and her children, as the widow
of the deceased Jose Antonio Nieto; the tract
OF Les Cerritos to Dona Manuela Nieto; ana che
remainder, which comprehended the tracts
Los Coyotes, Alamitos and Palo Alto to Don
Juan Jose Nieto, who as head of the family
had determine1 upon this division for
the benefit of its members. To avoid all
ground of dispute, he asked that possession be
given to each one of his or her portion thus
designated. On the subsequent day, July 27,
1888 the Political Chief made decree recit-
ing the former concession by Governor Pedro
FACES to Manuel Nieto and the peaceable and
uninterrupted possession by which he and his
heirs had enjoy ed the fruits of the lands and
declared them-the parties for whose benefit
the petition was presented-owners In fee of
the premises designating the portion granted
to each, namely: To Juan Jose Nieto the tracts
called Los Coyotes, Alamitos and Palo Verde
to Doha Manuela Nieto, the tract called Los
Cerritos; to Dofia Josef Gotta, widow Of Don An.
trades; to Do1a Catarina Ruiz, the widow of
Don Jose Antonio Nieto, the tract called Las
Bolsas. The Governor also directed that titles
for these several tracts should be issued to the
be given to them. on the 22d of May, 1884.
pursuant to this decree, formal grants were
issued by him to the part1es-to each one for
his or her separate p0rtion-and among them
by the name of Las Bolsas, bounded by the
tracts OF Los Alamitos and Los Coyotes, the
river Santa Ana and the COAST" he declaring,
by viitue of the authority conferred upon him
name OF the Mexican Nation, "the ownership
In fee" of the tract TO bS vested in her, and that