Santa Fe daily New Mexican. [volume] (Santa Fe, N.M.) 1885-1897, 1894-08-23
I. S. LAND COURT.
Opinion of the Court in the Three
COrnered Contest Involving
the Montana and SedillO
Grants.

In the controversy between the Anto.
Sedilo grant, the Montana grant and the
government as to who has the title to
about $4,000 acres lying south of the line
established by the land court in its orig
inal confirmation of the Montana grant,
Chief Justice Reed yesterday announced
the following opinion in the United States
land court
In case No. Is, Louis Hunlng VS.. the
United States, there is motion filed for
rehearing to establish the northern
boundary at different point than that
designated in the decree of confirmation
IN that case. Prior to the making of this
grant, grant had been made, known as
the Montana grant, which has been con-
tirmed in the suit instituted by Carlos W.
Lewis.
In the location of this Sedillo grant the
southern boundary of the Montana grant
was designated as the northern boundary
of the grant in question, and the petition
ers were put in possession to that bound
here to decide, and practically the only
question, is as to the correct location OF
that boundary. In the Montana grant
the southern boundary was designated as
the Cerro Colorado, and it WAS recited that
it was about two leagues from the villa,
, or village of San Fernando, that was sit
uated on the grant. .,~ H
The parties to the Montana grant sub
sequently attempted a reformation of
the grant in that respect, by striking out
the limitations or qualifications of the
description, and the question WAS after
wards discussed and the matter brought
to the attention of the governor in a
regular proceeding, and he fixed the
southern boundary of the grant two
leagues south of the town, some three
leagues, we believe, from the Cerro
Colorado; and the question is, whether
boundary of that line as fixed by that
decree, or by the object which was
designated as the southern boundary OF
the original grant. We held in our
original decision that it was bounded by
the mountain, and we adhere to that
finding. Except for this subsequent pro-
ceeding in the Montana grant which fixed
the southern boundary of that grant two
leagues from the villa. there would not
| be any question about the location under
| the ordinary rules of construction which
prevail in all courts, the object named
being the controlling matter in the de-
scription, and that must have been the
understanding at the time this subse-
| auent grant to Sedilo was made. II
was the understanding, we think, at that
time, that the southern boundary of the
Montana was the Cerro Colorado, anG
the northern boundary of the Secille
grant was fixed with reference to thai
object. We therefore override the mo
ton for rehearing.
Case No. II is proceeding subse
auently presented to establish the boun
Diary of the Montana grant by part.
claiming an interest in the grant.
In the suit of Carlos W. Lewis No. Z
the parties claimed two leagues south o
the villa as the boundary. We are of tn
opinion that the subsequent proceeding
before the governor was in the nature o
judicial proceeding and was tina
determination of the question as to tn
location of the boundary, which was bind
ing upon all parties in interest.
The adjudication of the boundary il
the Atrsco grant was by an alcalde wh'
could only adjudicate the boundary a
between the Atrisco and the Montana
granite. His adjudication "n-ia not a."
did not affect the south boundary OF tina
part of the Montana grant lying west
the Puerco, which boundary west of tn
Puerco remained as it was original
fixed in the expedients, and which, in GU
view, was the line of the Red mountain
This was the legal boundary at the tim
of the making of the Sedillo grant.
The subsequent adjudication by tn
governor seems to have been recognize
, by the settlers of San Fernando as bint
inp,