Los Angeles herald., 1893-01-10
THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC WINS
Its Depot Site and Lands atSan
Pedro Not Tidelands.
Decisions Yesterday by Judges Wade
Clark and Van Dyke.
A Pomona Architect Loses His Suit
United States Conrt-Court
Notes-New Suits
Filed.

n oCCiblOn WAS ICuuCiOU Wy VNNhe
Wade yesterday in department three o.
the superior court in the case of Rey'
nolds vs. The Southern Pacific Railroad
company, involving some important
questions. The court handed down an
opinion in the case in favor OF the
Southern Pacific company. The prop
erty includes the depot site at Sar
Pedro. The decision given in full is at
follows:
This is an action of ejectment brought
by plaintiff to recover possession OF
certain tract of five acres and fraction
which is at present occupied by defend
ant for railroad purposes, near San Pedro
harbor. Plaintiff claims under patent
from the state of California issued on
his application for the tract as tide
lands, under the provision of title eight
of the political code of California.
The defense is based upon several
grounds: Q) Denial of plaintiffs title
and right of possession, for the reason
that the patent is void. ~ Claim of
title and right of possession through
mesne conveyances from the patentee
of the Palos Verdes rancho. (3) Grant
to the defendant from the general gov
eminent by act of congress of March 4,
1875. (4) Prior grant of right OF way for
railroad purposes from the state OF Cal
fornia.
1t will be readily seen that OF these
four lines of defense the only one which
is consistent with the others is the first
that is consistent with each of the other
three, and neither of the others is con-
sistent with either save the first. Ii the
premises ever constituted portion OF
Palos Verdes, it could neither pass by
the act of congress in question nor by
permit from the surveyor general OF Cal
ifornia, and vice versa, all the way
through the combination. Thequestion
which appears on the threshold is
whether defendant is in position to
make this collateral attack On the pat
ent, it being regular on it's face.
The effect of plaintiffs argument is
that until the patent has been adjudged
invalid in an action brought directly for
that purpose, it must be held conclusive
in all courts of law as to the title of the
granted premises. This is proper
statement of the rule as to patents, in
all cases where the only question is
whether proper proceedings nave been
taken to obtain apatent. In such cases,
when this is the question sought to be
mooted by the collateral attack, the de-
cisions of our highest courts present
practically unbroken line OF defense.
There are cases, however, where the
attack is not merely upon the regularity
of the proceedings for obtaininga patent,
in which the above statement will be
found too general; and it is believed
that the case at bar is one of this sort.
1t is not sought to overthrow the patent
in this case, for the reason that the
patentee failed to take the necessary
steps to secure patent to the disputed
premises. What is claimed is, first,
that the patented property was never
owned by the state of California; or.
second, that if the title was vested in
the state, defendant received from the
proprietor q right of way over the same
and took possession in accordance, with
permission OF the proprietors, long
anterior to the patent.
If defendant is right in it's first con-
tention, it claims to hold under differ
ent original proprietor, namely, the gem
eral government. On the other hand,
if the premises belonged to the state as
tide lands (and it is not pretended she
could have any other claim to them) the
defense may be good without attacking
plaintiffs patent, except in 80 far as his
title would be subject to the easement.
For the purposes of this action the
doctrine of the inviolability of patents
is laid down with greater amplitude by
Mr.. Justice Mcfarland in the case OF
Gale vs.. Best rs CAL, 235-7-8) in the
following language:
"The rule is well settled by numerous
decisions of the supreme court Of the
United States that when law of con-
gress provides for the disposal and pat
enting of certain public lands, upon the
ascertainment of certain facts, the prop
or officers of the land department of the
general government have Jurisdiction to
inquire into and determine those facts ;
that the issuance of a patent is an OIL
cial declaration that such facts have been
found in favor of the patentee, and that
in such a case the patent is conclusive
in q court Of law and cannot be attached
collaterally. Of course itlook-
ing beyond the patent for q
law upon which it is based 1t
is found that there is no law
which authorizes such patent under
any state of facts, or that the particular
tract named in the patent has been alb
solutely reserved from disposal, then
the patent would be worthless and as
sailable from any quarter"
The cases of Smelling company VS..
Kemp GOA U. s. $3.50 and Steel vs.
Smelling company CLOS U. s. 447) are
cited with approval by the learnt d JUS
tice. as also that of French vs.. Pagan
(93 U. S. 169); but in none OF these
cases are the rival claimants III pre-
cisely the same position as in the case at
bar. In the Goes cited, as
we'll as that from which the
opinion is quoted, there is no question
but that the general government
was the paramount proprietor under
whom both parties claimed. True, in
Gale vs. Best and in French Va. Pagan
it was held that the jurisdiction OF the
general land officers was exclusive to
determine the character of the land, and
that their issuance of the patent
amounted to determination that the
land was of character to authorize the
patent; but it is not decided that these
officers have exclusive jurisdiction to
determine that the land covered by the
patent is public land; or, that it does
not already belong to some one else.
Were the contest between rival patent.
eee, for example, the land officers would
not have exclusive jurisdiction to deter
mine by the issuance of subsequent
patent that the prior one was invalid
or did not operate as a grant of the
same premises, (Smelting Company vs
Kemp, l04 U. s., 636.)