Los Angeles daily herald., 1889-08-15


being for an undivided half of the tract known
as Las Bolsas. The first patent, bearing date
on the 10th of June, 1874, was issued upon q
final decree confirming the claim of Ramon
the Mexican Government to Catsrina Ruiz is.
sued, as mentioned above, on the 22d day OF
May, 1884 Their petition was presented 10
the Land Commission ON the goth of October
1852, 1t traced the title OF the claimants to
Manuel Nieto, who, as averred, died In 1904 OF
1905, seized in fee as owner" OF the tract OF
land situeted in the county Of Los Angeles.
bounded by the riN er San Gabriel, by the old
road to Santa Ana, by the river Santa Ana and
| by the coast" that Nieto acquired his title to
| the land by grant from Governor Pedro Fages
some time between the years 1854 and 1888
which Il was believed was subsequently, rati
| fed by the Viceroy of New spain; that -four
title and possession; and that after the death
of two of them the land was divided by Gov.
ernor Figueroa between the surviving soDs and
| the widows of the deceased sons, and to them
separate titles were issued for their respec ctive
portions; that to CataIina Ruiz the grant was
Issued for the tract called Las Bolsss, and un'
der her the claimants derived their title. II
seems from the language OF the petition that
the claimants treated the concession TO Nfetf
as g. ant of title, an instrument transferring
the ownership Of the lands to him But, as al, al
| reach the title, and was only permission tc
Craze his cattle upon the tract mentioned II
may be doubted whether the Political Chief o.
| sessed any power 10 ALLEVIATE the fee OF any por
ton of the public domain. On this subject the
Land Commission, which had occasion to ex
anime the question when the title claimed un
der the concession to Manuel Nieto was before
| it, uses this language
| The concessions under the Spanish author
| ity, made in the CALIFORNIA; before the. inde
| pendence of Mexico, do not purport to be per
feet titles; at least, none OF that character have
fallen under the notice of the Commission. One
only has received confirmation, and that OF
| the ground that an equitable, though not lesa
| title. was established. The old grants were zen
orally mere rights of possession or provisional
and in almost every case, when the Govern
| ment was established after the Mexican revolu
ton, the parties applied for new grants, which
they received not as a mere evidence of a for
mer subsisting title, but in the form, and under
the terms, and subject to the conditions I'm
posed by the law OF 1924 and the regulations o1
| 1928. Under these, the power of the governors
over the public demain was defined: 1t was a
power to grant under certain conditions, not O
power to recognize and give new evidence OF
private titles already existing, without coDdi
tions or limitations. He had entire discre ion
| as to choice of grantees, and this power en-
abled him to do ample justice to persons who
held under provisional grants previously is.
sued, or who occupied without shadow OF
sented themselves to the new authorities for
concessions under the new order Of things, and
| readily received grants for the ancient posses.
sion. The archives Of this Commission are full
| of such documents, and the custom was all but
universal. (Record in U. S. o. Conception
Nieto, from Land Commission, in Clerks Office
OF U. .. D1stTlCt COUrt, NO. 4Zo.l
Certain 1t is that Governor Figueroa, when
he made decree ordering grants to the heirs OF
Nieto on the 9th of July, 1888. and when he
signed the form al grants to them on the 22nd
sion to Manuel Nieto passed the ownership OF
the land. Had 1t done so, he would have had
no power to make grants of the land to others,
sna 6s grants to
shows conclusiyely that be regarded the land
as still part OF the public domain OF MEXICO, to
be disposed of under its colonization laws.
The documentary evidence introduced be-
fore the Land Commission by the claimants,
and upon which the decree of confirmation
was made, consisted Of the grant to Catarina
Ruiz on the 22nd Of May, 1854; the record of
the judicial possession given to her, and In
struments transferring her title to them. The
clai m was confirmed September %, 1854, to
the extent of the undivided three.fourths Of
the rancho. On appeal to the District Court of
the United States the decree was modified and
the confirmation limited to an undivided half
of the rancho. subsequently, on the 4th Of
March, 1858, the Governm snt waived its appeal
from the decree OF the District Court, which
thereupop became final. The boundaries given
in the decree and recited in the patent are as
follows.
"The lands of which confirmation is hereby
made, are one undivided half of the tract
called Las Bolsas, situated in the County OF Los
Angeles, said tract of Las Bolsas being part OF
the lands originally granted to Manuel Nfeto
by Governor Pedro Fages, in or about the year
1884, and which said grant was recognized aud
ITmeu Dy tue ueCTee O1 udtt July II, 1000,
made by Governor Jose Figueroa in the pc:
tition of Luciano Grijalva presented on beb alf
of the heirs of the said Manuel NietO, and by
the grant of date May %, 1884, issued by said
JoEe Antonio Nieto, son OF said Manuel
Nieto, reference for boundaries OF tract of Las
Bolsas being had to said petition of Luciano
driialva, and to the map accompanying the
same, contained in the espediente filed in this
case, to wit: On the south by the lea, on the
west the lands called Los Alsmitos, on the
I ~ a.. I'D ND thA
tract solicited by Don Pstricio Ontiveras, and
on the east Rio de Santa Ana as the same ran
at the date of said petition"
The claim to the other undivided half Of the
Commission by Maria Cleofa Nieto Murillo and
her husband on the 9th day of September.
1852 1t was rejected by the board because the
claimants failed to connect themselves with
the grant to Catarins Ruiz, but upon appeal to
the District Court this appeal was reversed, and
the undivided half Of the land was confirmed
to the claimants. The decree recites: "Refer-
euce for boundaries of said tract of the Las
Bolsss being had to said petition of Luciano
Grijalva and to the map accompanying the
same, contained In the e1pedfente filed in this
case, to wit: On the south by the sea, on the
west by the land cslled Los Coyotes and the
tract solicited by Don Patricio Ontiveres, and
on the east by the River Santa Ana, as the ssme
ran at the date of the petition
A survey of the land confirmed by the decree
in favor of Ramon Yorba was made IN 1858,
under the direction of the United States Sur
was ordered into the United States District
Court for review, under the act of June 14th,
1860. Exceptions were filed to the survey,
which affected the boundary on the west side.
but did not affect the line along the east, alOD
the river and its old bed, which is the line in
dispute in this case. The exceptions to the
western line were sustained. but 10 change was
made on the eastern line, and In accordance
with the direction OF the District Court, modi-
| fled survey OF the land was made and returned
into the court. which wa, finally approved Feb
| ruary 9th, 1874 Upon this approved survey,
the patent to Yotba of the undivided half OF the
rancho was issued The rancho under the con-
firmstion to the Murillos was again surveyed
| the United States for California in December,
1868, and was approved by him April 3D. 1877,
| and by the Com missioner of the General Land
Office August 9th, 1877, and upon it the patent
was issued.
1t is plain from this brief statement that on
the 22d of May, 1884, the title passed from the
Mexican Government to Catarina Ruiz by the
grant of Governor Flgueros, and by the judi
cial proceedings which followed in 1885, she
was placed in possession of the premises
granted. Her estate in the lands became per
feet, subject only to the possibility of its be
coming thus divestt by the subsequent re.
fusal OF the Departmental Assembly I" give its
approval to the grant The regulations OF
ritories of the Republic provided that grants
OF land by the Governors thereof TO families or
private persons should not be held TO be 'defin
itely valid" without the previous approval OF
uments relating to such grants were to be for.
warded. But this provision did not prevent
the title from passing by grant OF the Cover
nor. AS said by the Supreme Court of the
United States in Hornsby VS.. United States, 10
Wall, 2 g: such approval was not q condition
precedent to the yesting of the title. Accord
ing to the regulations of 1928, the authority to
make grants of land In California was 10 iged