Los Angeles herald., 1891-09-27
THE LAST GUESSES.
SEVERAL DECISIONS FROM THE
SUPREME COURT.
The Case of Luco VS.. De Toro-Points of
Interest in the Opinion-Other Cases
Finally Settled.

Deputy Supreme Clerk M. J. Ashmore
yesterday received decisions in twoquite
prominent cases. The first is the case
of Luco, appellant, vs.. De Toro, respond
ent.
The appellant and several other plain
tiffs brought this action against the
respondent and others for partition of
tract of land known as the Rancho Mis-
sion Tor ex-Mission) of San Diego. A
patent to the land issued from the
United States to Santiago Arguello, Sep
tember l, 1878. The original complaint
was fled August s, 1882, and December
13, 1886, after the cause was reversed on
former appeal, the plaintiffs filed an
amendment to the complaint. In this
amendment they stated that Juan M.
Luco owns an undivided equitable inter-
est in the rancho by reason OF an agree
ment with Augustin Olvera in 1869. BY
this agreement Olvera agreed to give
Isaac Hartman a certain proportion of
the land if he should succeed in securing
a patent for it. Hartman carried out
his contract, securing a patent for
SO, ,S75. .38 acres of land, and became enti-
tied to 6,0S3.2743 acres under its provis-
ins. He transferred his interest to Luco
in 1869. But Olvera died and Juan de
Toro became administrator. They re-
fused to set apart the land to Luco, and
hence the suit. They alleged that
Hartman did not carry out his agree
ment, and the court found that there
had not been full and complete per-
formance.
The supreme court in discussing the
matter says that by the terms of the
contract between Hartman and Olvera
an express trust was created. Also that
upon the issuance of the patent, the
plaintiff became vested with an equita-
BILE estate in the land, as fully as if he
had made a contract of purchase, and
had paid the full amount of the pur-
chase price. The plaintiff could be di
vested of this estate by transfer or ad-
verse possession, but not by mere lapse
of time. In conclusion the court says:
'We think that in the action for a
partition there can be no doubt that the
parties may assert any title which they
have, legal or equitable. In equity the
plaintiff has perfect title. At the time
this action was commenced he had the
legal title to several thousand acres of
land, besides the equitable title Ito the
lands in controversy. The court had
jurisdiction of the subject matter and
acquired jurisdiction of the parties. The
Judgment and order reversed and the
cause remanded for new trial. The
opinion is handed down by Justice
Patterson, concurred in by Justices
Harrison, Sharpstein and Garoutte, and
Chief Justice Beatty and Justice Nc
farland dissent.
In the case of De Guyer, ct al, ap
pellants vs.. Banning, respondent, the
Judgment and order of the lower court
is affirmed. 1t was an action to recover
possession Of tract of land known as
terror boundaries of the inner bay OF
San Pedro. The plaintiffs claim the
land in controversy as a part of the
rancho San Pedro, the title to which is
a Spanish grant, confirmed by the
United States district court on appeal
thereto from the board of land COM
missioners, and United States patent
therefor dated December Is, 1865. This
patent conveys the land embraced in
the rancho San Pedro, as it was sur
veyed by the United States surveyor
general after the confirmation of the
grant. The judgment of the court was
in favor of the defendant, from which
an appeal was taken. The whole con-
troversy, says the court, grows out of
the alleged differences between the
boundaries of the grant, as given in the
decree confirming it, and those fixed in
the patent.
After quite a long discussion of the
case the court holds that in ascertaining
the boundaries Of the rancho San Pedro,
they must look to the patent, and if
there is conflict as to location and ex-
tent between it and the decree of con-
firmation, the patent must control. AS
to the remaining question whether or
not the land In controversy is included
within the exception, the court holds
that it is, and finds that the land is not
a part OF the rancho San Pedro. as
patented by the United States, and the
Judgment OF the superior court is right.
Tourist sleeping cars, Los Angeles to
FTo~o,,kn HopoIa without ohcnro hu fho