The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1889-04-02
SUPREME COURT LAND CASES,
sGuattess' Ehts--Unconfirmed Mex
lean Grants Void

WASHINGTON, April i--The snpreme
court to-day rendered decision in the
case OF Lizzie Buxton and Anna J. yoor.
hees, plaintiffs in error. VS.. Hattie L. Tray.
ert ct al. defendants in error, from the su.
preme court OF California The csse of the
plaintiffs rests upon the contention tha;
their father acquired by occupation of un-
surveyed lands of the United States the
right oi pre-eInption, which at his death
descended 10 plaintiffs under the laws OF
the United states.
The court holds this contention was not
well taken: settlement upon the public
lands IN advance of public surveys, the
court says is allowed 10 parties who intend
when the surveys are made to apply for
their purchase. III within a certain lime
after the surveys aud return of the piafs TO
the local land Office, the settler takes Ger
tain steps required by law. he acquires for
the tirst time the right of pre- emption 10
the land-that Is, the right 10 purchase ii
in preference ~ others. bat he has no
estate In the land which he could devise
by viii or which in case of death would
pass to his heirs-iltlaw. As has been hereto
fore held by the court, occupation and i'm
proyemeut of public lands with a view 10
pre-emrfion does not confer vested right
IN the lands Sc occupied. The United
states enters into no obligation that the
lands occupied shall never be put up for
sale, but simply declares that III case they
are offered for sale the occupants shall
have the privilege OF purchasing them
before all Others. The judgment OF the
lower court against plaintiffs rights is
affirmed. Opinion by Judge Field.
An opinion was also rendered in No.
1870, Brigedo, Boiller ct a., plaintiffs In
error, VS.. Domingo DomingueE. defendant
in error. from the supreme court OF Cali
fornia- This is an action of ejectment
brought by Dotainguez against Botiller
and others To recover possession of the
Ranch Las yirgerles. In Los Angeles county,
Cal, Dominguez' title is derived from q
grant made by Mexico in 1854. but which
grant has never been presented for con
firmation 10 the board of land commits
sioners appointed under the act OF con.
gress OF March 8. 1851. to settle private land
claims in California, and no patent for the
land has been issaed By the United States
II is eontended by Botiller that the tract ia
public land and open 10 entry uncer the
general land laws. The lower court held
that as Doninguex title TO the land In
Mexico was so pssffect at the time OF the
acquisition of California by the United
States, he was not compelled 20 submit the
grant for confirmation 10 the board of land
commissioners aud that his failure 10 do
so did not forfeit his grant Judgment was
therefore given against Botiller. and from
that judgment an appeal was taken to this
court
In an elaborate opinion by Justice Nil
Ter. the supreme court holds that the lover
court was In error. and therefore rvyerses
the Judgment OF the supreme court Of Cal
ifornia. The court says there Is nothtag
in the language OF the statute OF 1851, Great
ing the board OF land commissioners, tn
show that its proceedings are 10 Be limited
20 the settlement of implicit and ineloSte
claims. aud that claims already perfected
under Mexican law were to be excluded
sroga the jurisdiction OF the commission
Nowhere in the statute is there a hint oi
sn attempt at aBY distinction as te claims
10 be presented, cefween those which art
perfect and imperfect. II was not the pur
pose of the statute 20 settle titles betweeE
private citizens making claim % tie same
lands. The object was 20 separate and dis
finguish lauds which the United state,
owned from thoss, belonging, either eqHita
hly or legally, ia private parties undei
grants from spain or Mexico II was
equally as important 10 the object which
the United States bad In iae passage OF Il
that claims under perfect grants from The
Mexican government should be established
as that imperfect claims should be esiao
iishcd nr rejected, 80 that the government
might be enabled out of all iIs vast do
main 10 say. This Is Fny property, and
that the Mexican claimant who bad 9 5as.
claim might say. ~TAss 1ssssniae. In raa
ciusion. the court s8ys there can be ~
doubt of the proposition that no title &
land in California dependent on a spanish
or Mexican grant can be OF any validity
which has not been submitted - the hoAre
provided for the purpose in the act Of is51
and the Judgment of the supreme eOgft o.
California is accordingly reversed.
The oFiuiea Ia this ease, II Is SAID, aisect
the title to great quantity OF EaiifoFnii
isnds.