The record-union., 1891-02-09
ment went for defendant, and plaintiffs

ment went for defendant, and plaintiffs
appeal.
Plaintiffs claim title under an United
States patent to the Southern Pacific
Railroad Company, dated April 4, 1879,
and deed from said company to plain-
tiffs, dated June 20, 1887. Defendant
claims as pre-emptor, contending that
at the date of the definite location Of the
Southern Pacific Railroad, which was on
or about April 8, 1871, the land in contest
was within the exterior limits of the San
Jose Rancho, a valid Mexican grant, and
was therefore reserved from the grant to
the railroad company.
There was former trial of this case,
and former appeal. At that trial the
court made certain findings and gave
Judgment for plaintiffs. On appeal this
court determined most Of the questions
involved favorably to defendant floss VS..
Hinkell, Is Cal. 15S), and the decision of
this court then made as to those questions
has become the law of the case. But this
| court reversed the judgment for want of a
nndlng whether or not the land was
within the exterior boundaries of said
rancho. The court below had found that
according to survey called the ''Thomp-
son Survey" the land qoas within said
boundaries, and that according to sur
vey called the Hancock Survey" it was
not, and this court, in its opinion, said:
The exterior limits of the rancho do not
depend on any survey made of it. The
land sued for may be within such ex-
terror limits though excluded from the
survey. Though Hancock may have ex-
may be within the exterior boundaries
OF the rancho as granted by the Mexican
Government. What the exterior linn
It's OF such granted rancho were
must be determined by the erpedtente of
the grant issued by the Mexican Govern
ment, including petition, diseno, and
may be identified by parol evidence.
(See Doolen VS.. Carr, suprd)." And for
this defect in the findings the Judgment
was reversed, and the cause remanded
with directions to the court below to
hnd, on the testimony already intro
duced, and such further testimony as
may be introduced by either party,
whether or not the land in suit was, on
the Sd day of April, 1871, within the ex-
terror boundaries of the rancho San Jose
as granted by the Mexican Government,
and on such findings to enter Judgment
And so when the case went back to the
trlai court there was only one issue-the
one last above stated-to be determined,
When the case was heard again in the,
trial court, that court, following the said
directions of this court, found 'sthat the
land in suit tcas on the third day of April.
1871, within the exterior boundaries of
the Rancho San Jose as granted by the
Mexican Government" and gave iudg-
ment accordingly for defendant. And it
is evident that the judgment must stand
unless the court committed material
errors in ruling upon the admissibility of
evidence; or unless the said finding is not
supported by the evidence.
Appellants took certain exceptions to
the admission of certain evidence; but the
point is not pressed in the brief, and
especially when we consider what was
decided when the case was here before
we see no error on this point.
The main contention of appellants is
tnat the finding is not supported by the
evidence. Their counsel argue that the
court must have found the land in suit to
be within the exterior boundaries of the
rancho simply because it was claimed
that said boundaries included said land.
But there was introduced in evidence the
original petition, the erpediente, the diseno.
the act OF judicial possession, various
maps, DEGREES and proceedings, and also
oral testimony of witnesses as to the ex-
terror boundaries of the rancho. 1t would
be useless labor here to review all this
evidence. 1t is sufficient to say that after
a full consideration of the evidence we
are not prepared to say that the court was
not warranted in finding that the Land in
suit was within the exterior limits of the
San Jose Rancho, sas granted by the
Mexican Government"
The judgment and order denying q new
trial are affirmed. MCFARLAND, J.
We concur:
DEHAvEN, J.,
SHARPSTEIN, j.