Santa Fe new Mexican. [volume] (Santa Fe, N.M.) 1898-1951, 1900-05-11
JOSEDELEYBAGRANT
The Opinion Of the Court of Private
Land Claims Rejecting the
Claim.
INTERESTING DECISIONS

cinal Grant Oase-An Important Opin-
ion In the Juan Jose Lobato
Grant Case.
The United States court of private
land claims concluded it's labors for the
present term this morning, and ad-
journed to meet here again August T. In
the matter of the claim of Margarito
Baca ct al. for the San Jose del Encinal
tract of between $1,000 and 10000 acres
in Valencia county, an unusual form of
decree was drawn by Attorney B. 8.
Rodey and signed by the court. This
was decided to be in all respects "a per-
feet" grant, located within the bounda-
ries of the Ceboletta and Laguna
grants, both confirmed to their respect
i've owners by acts Of congress and duly
patented. The decree says that not
withstanding the fact that title to the
Encinal tract Is vested in Baltazar Ba-
ca and his two sons and their success
sors in interest this court is without
jurisdiction because of the patents for
the United States, to decree and confirm
the same unto them, or to order sur
vey thereof for such purpose. and for
such reason no other order or different
character of the claimants title as
aforesaid is or will be granted by this
court, and it is so ordered" Thus the
controversy as to the ownership passes
from the land court, and is left open
to be determined by compromise or by
the common law courts. 1t Is regarded
as very wise and happy solution of
the question.
THE JOSE DE LEYBA GRANT.
In the case of Mariana F. Sena ct al,
claiming the Jose de Leyba grant for
some 10000 acres, in south Santa Fe
county, alleged to involve the Tiffany
turquois mines Justice Wilbur F. Stone
rendered the opinion of the court. 1t
reads as follows:
It IllIC pdpCIS dHu uOSuilChs Plo-
duced from the archives of the surveyor
generals Office and received in evidence
in this case show that the grant in
question was made to Jose de Leyba by
the governor and captain general, Bus
tamante, in the name of the king of
Spain in the year 1925 and that possess
sion was formally given to the grantee
of the land petitioned for and granted.
The evidence as to settlement ard oc-
cupation of the tract purportng to
have been granted, continuity of pos
session, cultivation, residence, improve
ment, claim of ownership, notoriety of
the grant, and knowledge of Its exist
ence in the community or by the Oldest
inhabitants now living, is SO vague,
contradictory and uncertain as to be al
most wholly wanting.
The question of boundaries of the
tract claimed was one of serious con-
tention upon the hearing of the case, in
volving, as it does, the patent titles and
other conflicting interests of adverse
claimants to lands embraced with the
boundaries claimed under the grant IT,
tie.
Upon consideration of the state OF
facts presented, the court has reached
a conclusion which may be briefly stat
ed. The first question arising is, what is
the character of this grant, whether
perfect or imperfect? 1t is claimed by
petitioner to be a perfect grant, and
therefore could be brought into this
the statute. Inasmuch as the grant was
made at the date mentioned, 1928, II
falls under the requirements of the roy
al ordinance of 1854, which provides
that all grants made subsequent to 17O(
unless already confirmed by royal order
of the king, or his viceroys, or presi-
dents of the audiencias of the severa
districts embracing the lands granted
should apply for such confirmation as
prerequisite to validity. There Is nc
evidence in this case, either by the doc
uments presented or otherwise, that
these requirements Of the ordinance OF
1854 were ever complied with. Nor is
there in the nature of the case or upor
any of the facts in evidence any grounds
that will justify presumption Of sucl
compliance with the requirement TO
confirmation. It therefore follows tina
this grant must be held to be not per
feet, but an imperfect, grant. And a
such imperfect grant, 1t Is subject t.
the provision of the act creating thi
court, requiring the petition for con
firmation herein to be filed within tw'
years, but since this case was no
brought or filed in this court until tn
present year. we must hold that 1t Il
barred by this statute of limitations
and hence must dismiss the case 70
want of Jurisdiction under the sal,
statute.
JUAN JOSE LOBATO GRANT.
The United States court of privat
land claims made an interesting deci
sion in the Juan Jose Lobato gran
case. The grant Is situated in Rio Arri
ba county, and has been confirmed an
the survey approved. Now come tn
claimants, Jose Isabel Martinez ct al
and ask for a money judgment TO
lands on the grant which have bee
patented by the United States to mum
ber of settlers. In their petition for tn
confirmation Of the grant the plaintiff
had alleged that there were no advers
claimants to any portion of the lant
and the decree confirmed all the Ian
within the boundaries established
making no reservation Of any land
which NAV have been sold or dispose