Los Angeles herald., 1891-09-26

The long-pending case OF De Toro
ct al, appellants, VS.. Robinson ct al,
respondents, has been determined by
the supreme court, the decision having
reached the city yesterday, affirming the
Judgment Of the lower court.
The action was brought to obtain
decree that the plaintiffs are the owners
in equity of certain undivided inter-
est in 5O,444 acres of land within the
Los Coyotes tract, and that the defend
ants hold the legal title to the interest
in trust for them. The defendants
answered, and obtained judgment
upon the pleadings, from which plain
tiffs appealed. The allegations of the
complaint in the case were, in sub
stance, that the plaintiffs are successors
in interest of Juan Jose Nieto; that
July %, 1888, Jose Figueroa, then gov
ernor of California, made a decree de-
claring Nieto to be the owner OF the
places called Los Coyotes, Los Alamitos
and Palo Alto, in this county.
He directed juridical possession
and title thereto to be given
Nieto. The places were contiguous
and contained more than seventeen
leagues of land. May %, 1884, the
governor made grant of Los Coyotes.
embracing ten leagues, to Nieto. The
complaint states that Abel Stearns ac-
quired the right and title of Nieto to
Los Alamitos, and obtained from the
land commission a confirmation Of an
alleged grant to Nieto of the same for
six leagues. 1t is alleged that Nieto
conveyed Los Coyotes to man named
Leandry as containing ten leagues
August 81, 1889, and in 1852 Andreas
Pico and Mrs. Ocampo, successors of
Leandry, obtained confirmation of the
Los Coyotes for ten leagues. IT is also
alleged that the patent issued to them
for the rancho as containing eleven
leagues, and one to Abel Stearns for
Los Alamitos as containing six leagties,
but in fact containing an excess of 1898
acres. It is nowhere alleged that any
formal grant or title to Palo Alto was
ever made to Nieto, unless the decree
of July 81, 1888, can be construed as
such.
The complaint further alleges that
Abel Stearns, for the purpose of de-
frauding Nieto OF one square league of
map produced by him as the boundaries
of Los Coyotes, and induced the district
court to approve a survey thereof as
containing eleven leagues of land.
The court says that judgment on the
pleadings was properly granted, it be-
ing clear that Nieto, the ancestor of the
plaintiffs, conveyed in his lifetime his
entire interest in Los Coyotes and Los
Alamitos, and if he died possessed of
Palo Alto there is no direct averment
in the complaint that the boundaries of
Los Coyotes and Alamitos include Palo
Alto. The complaint does not show
that the appellants are the equitable
owners of any portion of the lands in
controversy. Whatever equities or
rights the plaintiffs have arise from the
decree of Governor Figueroa declaring
Nieto the owner of all three places, and
as he parted in his lifetime with the
ownership OF all save Palo Alto, the
plaintiff could only succeed to his
ownership OF that place. But it is ex-
pressly averred that the grant of Palo
Alto to Nieto was never confirmed.
This being so they cannot be heard to
complain of the fraud alleged to have
been perpetrated years afterward in the
location and survey of Los Coyotes, be-
cause such acts deprived them Of no
rights. The fraud, if perpetrated, was
against the United States, and consisted
in fraudulently extending the bounda-
ries of the Los Coyotes over portion of
the public domain. This was matter,
however, with which appellants have
no concern, and which cannot aid them
in this action. The judgment is then
affirmed by the court.
In the case of Miller, appellant, VS..
Waddinghan ct al, respondents, the
Judgment of the lower court is affil med.