Los Angeles daily herald., 1889-04-02
TWOLAND DECISIONS.
Precise Meaning of a "Pre-
emptiOn" Claim.
THE SETTLERS RIGHT DEFINED.
Lands Held Under Mexican Grants
Must Be Confirmed by U, S.
Commissioners.
Associated Press Dispatches to the HERALD.

Associated Press DISPATCHES to the HERALD.
WASHINGTON, April 1.-The Supreme
Court rendered a decision in case 221,
Lizzie Buxton and Anna j. Voorhees,,
plaintiffs in error, vs.. Hattie L. Travers
ct al, in error to the Supreme Court OF
California. The case of the plaintiffs
rests upon the contention that their
father acquired, by occupation of unsur-
veyed land, United States right of pre-
emption, which, at his death, descended
to plaintiffs under the laws of the United
States. The Court holds that this con-
tention is not we'll taken. Settlement
upon public lands in advance of public
SURVEYS, the Court says, is allowed to
parties who intend, when surveys are
made to apply for their purchase. If,
within a certain time after the surveys
and return of plats to local land
Offices, the settler takes certain steps
required by law, he acquires for the first
time the right of presumption to the
land, that is, the right to purchase it in
preference to others. Until then, he has
no estate in the land which he could de-
wise by will or which, in case of death,
would pass to his heirs-at-law. AS has
been heretofore held by the court, occu-
patton and improvement of public lands
with a view to pre- emption does not con-
fer q vested right in the lands 30 occu-
pied. The United States enters into no
obligation that the lands occupied shall
never be put up for sale, but simply de-
clares, in case they are offered for sale,
the occupants shall have the privilege of
them before all others. The
Judgment of the lower court against the
plaintiffs right is affirmed. The opinion
is by Justice Field.
An opinion was also rendered in case
No. 1870, Brigid o. o. Botiller ct al,
plaintiffs in error, versus Domingo Do
minguez, in error, to the Supreme Court
of California. This is an action of eject
ment brought by Dominguez against Bo-
tiller and others to recover possession of
the Rancho Las Virgines, in Los Angeles
county, California. Dominguez's title is
derived from a grant made by Mexico in
1884, but which grant had never been
presented for confirmation to the Board
Of Land Commissioners, appointed under
the Act of Congress, of March Sd, 1851,
to settle private land claims in California
and no patent for the land has ever been
issued by the United States. 1t is con-
ended by Botiller that the tract
is public land and open to
entry under the general land laws. The
Iower court held that as Dominguez's
title to the land from Mexico was perfect
1T the time of the acquisition of Califor-
MIA by the United States, he was not
to submit grant for confirma-
ion to the Board of Land Commission
srs, and that his failure TO do so did not
orfeit his grant. Judgment was there
lore given against Botiller, and from that
Judgment an appeal was taken to this
court. In an elaborate opinion by JUS
lice Miller, the Supreme Court holds
that the lower court was in error and
therefore reverses the judgment of the
Supreme Court of California. The court
says there is nothing in the Ian
suage of the statute of 1851, Great
ng the Board of Land Commits
,ioners. to show that its proceedings
we're to be limited to the settlement of
implied and inchoate claims, and that
,laims already perfected under the Mex
can law were to be excluded from the
of the Commission. Nowhere
n the statute is there hint OF an at
;empt at any distinction as to claims to
De presented between those which are
perfect and those which are imperfect.
It was not the purpose of the Statute to
settle titles between private citizens max
ng claims to the same lands. The OBJ
ect was to separate and distinguish lands
which the United States owned from
hose which belonged, equitably or le-
yally, to private parties under grant from
Spain or Mexico. 1t was equally impor-
ant to the object which the United States
lad in the passage of it, that claims
lnder perfect grants from the Mexican
Government should be established as
hat imperfect claims should be estab-
ished or rejected, so that the Govern
nent might be enabled out of all its vaet
lomain, to say: "This is my property"
ind that q Mexican claimant who had
ust claim, might cay: "This is mine"
IN conclusion, the Court said there can
1e no doubt of the proposition that no
title to land in California, dependent
lpon Spanish or Mexican grants, can be
If any validity which has not been SUBJ
nitted to the board provided for the pur
pose in the act of 1851, and the judgment
If the Supreme Court of California is ac-
,ordingly reversed. The opinion in this
case, it is said, will affect the title to a
great quantity OF California lands.
Judge Wilson to Resign.