Source: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/132/554/
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 06:27:12+00:00

Document:
where the supreme court of a state decides a federal question, in rendering a judgment, and also decides against the plaintiff in error on an independent ground not involving a federal question, and broad enough to maintain the judgment, the writ of error will be dismissed, without considering the federal question.
19.61 chains to the place of beginning, containing eighteen and a half acres."
decree of the said circuit court of the United States, made December 24, 1856, and that said decree did not authorize the issuing of a patent by the United States for the land described in the complaint, or for any land on the west side of the Arroyo Seco, but made the Arroyo Seco the boundary between the pueblo and the Huichica Rancho.
as follows, to-wit: bounded on the north by the upper road which goes to Napa, on the east by the Arroyo de los Carneros, on the south by the marshy land adjoining the Bay of San Francisco, and on the west by the Estero of Sonoma, as far as the Trancas, taking the direction (el rumbo -- direction or course) of the Arroyo Seco."
"the Sonoma Creek, from a post marked 'L' at the lower landing, as far as a post marked 'L' at the Trancas; thence a straight line running north, 37 degrees east, 156 chains, to a post marked 'L' on the Arroyo Seco at the Huichica hills. This last line is known as the 'Trancas Line.'"
By quitclaim deeds under Leese, Schell claimed title to 470 acres of the Huichica Rancho.
"On the east the Arroyo Seco, from the vineyard of Salvador Vallejo to the salt marsh on the bay; thence along the salt marsh westerly to Sonoma Creek; thence up said creek to the Agua Caliente Creek; thence easterly, by the hills north of the city, to place of beginning."
"A direct line running from the point marked 'Trancas,' on Sonoma Creek, to the point where the Arroyo Seco enters the salt marsh (station No. 43 in the amended survey of Rancho Huichica), and thence following the direction of the Arroyo Seco to the Little Huichica Hills, should constitute the southeasterly boundary of the pueblo of Sonoma,"
to reside upon, cultivate, and improve the whole of the same up to October 11, 1860, and resided upon, cultivated, and improved the west part of the tract so conveyed to him, including the portion sued for by the plaintiffs, ever since 1851. In September, 1860, Schell sued Akers in the Seventh District Court of the State of California for the County of Sonoma to recover all of the said tract of land, claiming title thereto under the Huichica patent, and Akers, by his answer in that action, claimed title to the whole thereof under his deed from the City of Sonoma. While the action was pending, and on the 11th of October, 1860, the agreement in writing before mentioned was made. On the execution of that agreement, Schell dismissed his action, and a fence was built by the parties from the lane mentioned in the complaint, extending northerly across the said 111-acre tract and dividing it into two fields of nearly equal size, and Akers surrendered to Schell the possession of all that portion of the 111-acre tract lying east of said fence, and embracing about 50 acres, and retained the possession of all the land on the west side of said fence. The Trancas line, being the western boundary of the line patented to Leese, divides the 111-acre tract into two three-cornered pieces, the line running from the southwest to the northeast and crossing the said fence, leaving a portion within the Huichica patent on the west side of the fence in the possession of Akers, and also leaving a portion on the east side of the fence, not embraced within the patent of the Huichica, in the possession of Schell, held by him under the said contract.
of beginning, is included within the land described in the complaint. Said piece of land is situated between Arroyo Seco and the Trancas line, and is within the boundaries described in the grant of the Huichica Rancho of July, 1844, the decrees of confirmation, the surveys and the patent thereof of August 3, 1859; also the three deeds under which Schell claimed title to the 470 acres, and is not within the exceptions mentioned in the first of said deeds. Said piece of land is also within the boundaries of the pueblo of Sonoma, established by Vallejo, the decrees of confirmation, the final survey, and the patent of said pueblo, issued March 31, 1880; also the 111-acre tract, and is on the west side of the fence built by the parties.
The court found as follows as matter of law: that the City of Sonoma has established its claim to the land in controversy within the meaning of the said contract between Schell and Akers. That, by the terms of said contract, each agreed with the other to abide by the decision of the United States on the said claim of the City of Sonoma for said lands as then pending before the United States courts, and to abide by the boundary line between them as established on the final confirmation of pueblo lands to the City of Sonoma. That the defendant Stephen Akers is entitled to the possession of all the lands and premises described in the complaint. That all the right, title, and interest of Leese in and to all the piece of land described in finding 25, derived by him under the patent of the Huichica Rancho, passed to and became vested in Schell on the 18th of January, 1859. That all the title of the City of Sonoma passed to and became vested in Stephen Akers by deed dated May 13, 1858, in and to the said tract described in said finding 25. That defendants are entitled to judgment for the possession of all the land described in the plaintiffs' complaint, with costs of suit.
"The court is of the opinion that the contract of the 11th of October, 1860, is conclusive of this controversy. The Huichica patent had issued when that agreement was made, and covered the land in dispute.
Plaintiffs' testator had then all the title which he ever could acquire. The parties must have referred to she final location of the patent of the pueblo of Sonoma, when they, in their agreement, used the phrase 'in the event the City of Sonoma establishes her claim to any portion' of said land. That patent has been finally located, and embraces the land which is the subject of this suit. It follows that the defendants should prevail."
The judgment of the superior court was that the defendants recover costs from the plaintiffs. The latter took an appeal to the supreme court of the state, which affirmed the judgment of the superior court by a judgment to review which the plaintiffs have brought a writ of error.
The opinion of the supreme court, found in the record and also reported as Hale v. Akers, 69 Cal. 160, recites the facts as found by the superior court and then states that there are two sufficient answers to the claims made by the plaintiffs. In its first answer, the court considered the meaning of the words, "taking the direction of the Arroyo Seco," found in the second grant, of July 6, 1844, and in the decree of confirmation, and stated that it seemed to it, as it did to the Commissioner of the General Land Office, that the line was to run from the Trancas to the nearest point on the Arroyo Seco, and thence up that creek or gulch; that if that were so, then it is clear that the line as run by the surveyor did not conform to the decree, but took in lands not covered by the decree, and that it must follow that, to the lands so taken in, the original concession to the pueblo, and the patent issued upon confirmation thereof, carried the better right.
and took in the land lying between the Trancas line and the Arroyo Seco; that the city was asserting a right to that land, and the case was pending before the courts; that Akers had a deed, given by the city in May, 1858, of 111 acres of the land, and was in possession of them; that under these circumstances, the parties compromised the pending suit by dividing the 111 acres about equally between them, Akers releasing to Schell the eastern half and retaining the western half; that under the terms of the agreement, the only establishment of the Sonoma claim which the parties contemplated was such as would result from the action of the courts upon it, and the issuing of a patent by the government in pursuance of their decrees; that the parties evidently thought that if the city should finally succeed in establishing its claim and receive a patent for any of the land within the lines of the Huichica patent, it would have the better title to the land, and that they could therefore avoid litigation and expense, and safely await the issue of the city's contest; that they rightly interpreted the law, and that Schell, so long as he lived, acquiesced in the arrangement.
It is contended for the defendants that this Court has no jurisdiction of this case. For the plaintiffs, it is contended that not only was a federal question raised in the supreme court of the state, but it was decided adversely to the plaintiffs, and that both parties claimed under titles acquired from the Mexican government prior to the cession of California to the United States.
patent which should be thereafter issued to the City of Sonoma conveying any portion of the land to which Schell then had title under the Huichica patent of August 3, 1859, would or could divest Schell of his title to the land under the Huichica patent or establish a superior title thereto in the City of Sonoma.
After contending that the court below erred in its decision of the federal question, that such decision was based upon the facts (1) that the land in dispute was a portion of the pueblo land, and (2) that the lines of the survey of the Huichica grant did not conform to the decree of confirmation, and that in so doing the court ignored (1) the power of the Mexican government to divest the pueblo title and (2) the findings of the lower court that the survey did conform to the decree, the plaintiffs urge that the interpretation by that court of the agreement between Schell and Akers was incorrect, and that it would not have so interpreted the agreement had it not been for its erroneous deduction of law regarding the federal question, and therefore that the decision of the federal question was the controlling decision of the case.
But we cannot take this view. Both of the courts below decided that irrespective of the federal question, the agreement of October 11, 1860, was decisive of the case. The construction of that agreement involved no federal question, and controlled the whole case.
In Murdock v. City of Memphis, 20 Wall. 590, 87 U. S. 636, this Court announced, as one of the propositions which flowed from the provisions of the second section of the Act of February 5, 1867, 14 Stat. 386, embodied in section 709 of the Revised Statutes of 1878 and still in force, that even assuming that a federal question was erroneously decided against the plaintiff in error, the court must further inquire whether there was any other matter or issue adjudged by the state court which is sufficiently broad to maintain the judgment of that court notwithstanding the error in deciding the issue raised by the federal question, and that if that is found to be the case, the judgment must be affirmed without inquiring into the soundness of the decision on such other matter or issue.
This principle has since been repeatedly applied. In Jenkins v. Loewenthal, 110 U. S. 222, where two defenses were made in the state court, either of which, if sustained, barred the action, and one involved a federal question and the other did not, and the state court in its decree sustained them both, this Court said that, as the finding by the state court of the fact which sustained the defense which did not involve a federal question was broad enough to maintain the decree, even though the federal question was wrongly decided, it would affirm the decree without considering the federal question or expressing any opinion upon it, and that such practice was sustained by the case of Murdock v. City of Memphis, supra. See also McManus v. O'Sullivan, 91 U. S. 578; Brown v. Atwell, 92 U. S. 327; Citizens' Bank v. Board of Liquidation, 98 U. S. 140; Chouteau v. Gibson, 111 U. S. 200; Adams County v. Burlington & Missouri Railroad, 112 U. S. 123; Detroit City Railway v. Guthard, 114 U. S. 133; New Orleans Waterworks Co. v. Louisiana Sugar Refining Co., 125 U. S. 18; De Saussure v. Gaillard, 127 U. S. 216, 127 U. S. 234.
It appears clearly from the opinion of the supreme court that it was not necessary to the judgment it gave that the words "taking the direction of the Arroyo Seco" should be construed at all. It is therefore of no consequence whether or not that court was wrong in its conclusions as to the meaning of the Huichica grant.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.