Helena weekly herald., 1889-04-04
u. 5. SUPREME COURT.
Important Decisions in Regard to the
California Land Dispute.

WARRINGTON, April 1.-The Supreme
Court to-day rendered decision in the
case of Lizzie Buxton and Anna J. Voor-
hees 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 &C.
quired by occupation of unsurveyed lands
the United States right of pre.emption,
which at his death descelded to the
plaintiffs under the laws. The United
States Court holds that this contention was
not we'll taken. The settlement upon pub.
lie lands in advance of public surveys, the
court says, is allowed to parties who in
tend when the surveys are made to apply
for their purchase. If within a certain
time of the surveys and the return of the
plats to the local land offices, the settler
takes certain steps required by law, he
acquires for the first time the right of pre-
emption to the land. That is,
the right to purchase it in
preference to others. Until then he has
the estate in land, which he couli devise
by will or which, in case of death, would
pass to his heirs in law as has been hereto
fore held by the court. The occupation
and improvement of public lands with a
view to pre- emption does not confer a
vested right in lands 90 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 be-
fore all others The judgment Of the
lower court against the plaintiffs rights is
affirmed. Opinion by Judge Field.
An opinion was also rendered in No.
1870. Brigedo, Botiller, ct al, plaintiffs in
error, vs. Domingo Domingueee, in error, to
the Supreme Court of California. This is
an action of ejectment brought by Domi-
nguese against Botiller and others to recover
possession of Ranch Las Virgines in Los
Angeles county, California. Dimingueses
title is derived from the grant made by
Mexico in 1884, but which grant never had
been presented for confirmation to the
Board of Land Commissioners appointed
under an act of Congress March 3, 1857, to
settle private land claims in California, and
the United States.
1t is contended by Botiller that the
tract is public land and open to entry
under the general land laws. The lower
court held that as Dominguese title to
the land in Mexico was perfect at the time
of the acquisition of California by the
United States, he was not compelled to sub
NIT agrantfor California to the board of Land
Commissioners, and that his failure to do
so did not forfeit his grant. Judgment
was, therefore, given against Botiller, and
from that judgment appeal was taken to
this court. In an elaborate opinion by
Justice Miller, the Supreme Court holds
that the lower court was in error, and there
fore reverses the Judgment Of the Supreme
Court of California.
The court says there is nothing in the
language of the staute of 1857 creating
Board of Land Commissioners, to show that
its proceedings were to be limited to the
implicit and inchoate CLANS and that the
claims already perfected under the Mexi-
can law were to be excluded from the ur-
isdiction of the Commission. Nowhere in
the statute is there hint of an attempt at
any distinction as to the claims to be pre-
sented between those which are perfect
and imperfect 1t was not the purpose of
the statute to settle the bills between pri-
vate citizens making claim to the same
lands, but the object was to separate
and distinguish the lands which the United
States owned from those belonging
either equitably or legally to private
parties under grant from Spain or Mexico.
1t was equally important to the object
which the United States had in the passage
of it that claims under perfect grants from
the Mexican government should be estab-
lished as that imperfect claims should be
established or rejected, so that the govern
ment be enabled, out of its vast domain, to
say: This is my property, and that the
Mexican claimant who had just claim
might say: This is mine.
In conclusion the court says: There can
be no doubt of the proposition that no
title to land in California dependent on the
Spanish or Mexican grant can be of any
validity which had not been submitted to
board provided for the purpose in the act
of 1851, and the judgment of the Supreme
Court of California is accordingly reversed.
The opinion in this case, it is said, affects
the title to great quantity of California
lands.