Source: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/175/60.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 01:14:02+00:00

Document:
[175 U.S. 60, 61] This was a petition filed by Maria de la Paz Valdez de Conway and twenty-one others in the court of private land claims for the confirmation of a tract of land known as the Cuyamungue grant, or private land claim, situated in the county of Santa F e, territory of New Mexico, and alleged to contain in excess of 5,000 acres.
It appears from an examination of the expediente, offered in evidence as the basis of the claim, that on January 22, 1731, Bernardino de Sena, Tomas de Sena, and Luis Lopez presented a petition to Governor Juan Domingo Bustamente to grant them the surplus land in the abandoned pueblo of Cuyamungue as royal, public, and uninhabited, and described it as being situated on both sides of the river Tesuque (formerly Cuyamungue), and extending from a bluff of the pueblo of Cuyamungue to the hills of the Namb e road.
Such notice having been given, the alcalde on January 22, 1731, put the petitioners in juridical possession of the lands, describing the boundaries, and, after executing such act, returned the proceedings to the governor, by whom they were approved and placed in the royal archives of the city of Santa F e, a testimonio thereof being delivered to the grantees, the original of which is now a part of the archives of the United States in the custody of the surveyor general of the territory. The grantees, their heirs and assigns, have been in possession [175 U.S. 60, 62] of the land grant up to the present time, a period of one hundred and sixty-four years.
The petition further alleged that the claim had been examined and approved by the surveyor general of the territory, returned by him favorably to Congress with a recommendation that the same be confirmed to the legal representatives of the original petitioners; but that it had never been acted upon by Congress, or the authorities of the United States.
The government made no answer to the petition, but the court proceeded to hear the cause upon petition and proofs under the last clause of section 6 of the court of private land claims act, notwithstanding the failure of the government to file an answer. Petitioners produced certain witnesses to the effect that portions of the land granted had been occupied and cultivated by persons claiming under the original grantees; while the government showed that Indians of the pueblos of Namb e and Pojoaque had many years before instituted proceedings before the surveyor general of New Mexico under the act of July 22, 1854, for 4 leagues of land each; that the surveyor general had recommended that the lands thus demanded be granted to them, and Congress had confirmed the grant to each of said pueblos for 4 leagues as recommended (11 Stat. at L. 374); that the grants to said pueblos were surveyed and patents for them issued; that such surveys covered the larger portions of the land of the old pueblo of Cuyamungue, which petitioners alleged were granted to the original grantees in this case.
The oral testimony tended to show that the pueblo of Pojoaque had been in existence since 1710, and the pueblo of Namb e from a time immemorial.
Upon motion made by the government and upon the consent of all the parties to the proceeding, it was ordered on October 11, 1895, that these pueblos be made parties, and that the petition of the claimants be deemed amended accordingly. It did not appear that any copy of the petition was served upon these pueblos, or that they appeared or waived service; but the court on October 24, 1895, entered a decree against the United States confirming the entire grant as com- [175 U.S. 60, 63] plete and perfect as of the date of the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, in 1848, and further decreed that the confirmation should in no wise affect the rights of the pueblos of Pojoaque and Namb e, if any they have, as between them and the confirmees under their patents issued by the United States government.
Subsequently to this decree, and on November 9, the Indians of the two pueblos above named entered their appearance, stated that the lands confirmed to the petitioners were almost entirely within the limits of the lands confirmed by the act of Congress to these pueblos, and patented to them, and that, while they were made parties defendant to the petition, they were never served with process, and has no opportunity of making a defense, and therefore moved the court to vacate the decree of confirmation and allow them to be heard in opposition to the claim. This motion was subsequently, and on December 2, 1896, denied, whereupon the United States appealed to this court.
Mr. John H. Knaebel for appellees.
The court declined to except out of the decree of confirmation the lands covered by the pueblos' patents, but did adjudge that the confirmation should in no wise affect the rights of [175 U.S. 60, 65] the pueblos as between them and the petitioners under their patents.
The case depends largely upon the construction given to the sections and parts of sections of the act constituting the court of private land claims. 26 Stat. at L. 854.
By section 8, persons claiming lands under a Spanish or Mexican title 'that was complete and perfect at the date when the United States acquired sovereignty therein shall have the right (but shall not be bound) to apply to said court in the manner in this act provided for in other cases for confirmation of such title;' but the confirmation of such title 'shall be for so much land only as such perfect title shall be found to cover, always excepting any part of such land that shall have been disposed of by the United States, and always subject to and not to affect any conflicting private interests, rights, or [175 U.S. 60, 66] claims held or claimed adversely to any such claim or title, or adversely to the holder of any such claim or title. And no confirmation of claims or titles in this section mentioned shall have any effect other or further than as a release of all claim of title by the United States; and no private right of any person, as between himself and other claimants or persons in respect of any such lands, shall be in any manner affected thereby.' It was under this section that the petition in this case was presented and a 'complete and perfect title' claimed.
The government having thus exhausted its power with reference to the land in dispute by granting all its title as sovereign proprietor to the pueblos, it is difficult to see upon what principle it is called upon to make or confirm another grant to a different person. Nothing can be plainer from the language of the private land claim act than that lands 'that shall have been disposed of by the United States' should be excepted from the decree of confirmation (sec. 8); that no claim shall be allowed which shall interfere with or overthrow any just or unextinguished Indian title (sec. 13); that no [175 U.S. 60, 68] claim shall be allowed for any land the right to which has been lawfully acted upon and decided by Congress (sec. 13); and that no proceeding under the act shall conclude or affect the private rights of persons as between each other (sec. 13). Under these provisions, if the court were to confirm this grant for lands already granted, such confirmation would be void, as nothing is better settled by this court than that a patent issued by the United States to lands which they do not own is a simple nullity. Polk's Lessee v. Wendell, 9 Cranch, 99, 3 L. ed. 669; S. C. 5 Wheat. 293, 5 L. ed. 92; Sabariego v. Maverick, 124 U.S. 261, 281 , 31 S. L. ed. 430, 438, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 461; Wright v. Roseberry, 121 U.S. 488, 520 , 30 S. L. ed. 1039, 1049, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 985; Doolan v. Carr, 125 U.S. 618, 625 , 31 S. L. ed. 844, 847, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1228; Noble v. Union River Logging R. Co. 147 U.S. 165, 174 , 37 S. L. ed. 123, 127, 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. 271.
It is true that the act of December 22, 1858, confirming these lands to the pueblos, may have been itself void by reason of petitioner's prior title thereto; but that is a question which is not necessarily involved in this case and upon which we express no opinion. It will occasionally happen that the government through accident or inadvertence will patent the same land a second time; but when its attention is called to the fact that the land has been previously patented it cannot patent the same land a second time without virtually stultifying itself. A patent assumes that a patentor has certain rights to convey, and that, if those rights have already been conveyed with the knowledge of the grantor, a second patent carries with it a suspicion of a want of good faith.
Nor is the confirmation of this patent essential to the protection of the petitioner. The title set forth is one which was complete and perfect at the date of the treaty, and while he had the right, under section 8, he was clearly not bound to apply to the court for a confirmation of such title, but was at liberty to resort to the local courts for its establishment.
Nor is this the proper time to adjudicate upon the respective merits of the two titles. We have only to consider whether the government can properly be called upon to confirm that which it has already confirmed to another party. The court of private land claims seems to have assumed that the grant by Congress to the pueblos was absolutely void by reason of the fact that, the petitioners having a complete and perfect title, the United States had nothing to convey. This may be entirely true, but it is not perceived how the petitioners' title can be aided by the government devesting itself for a second time of a title which it had already released. The duty of the court under section 8, 'to hear, try, and determine the validity of the same' (the grant) 'and the right of the claimant thereto, its extent, location, and boundaries,' is discharged by determining the extent and validity of the grant as between the United States and the grantee, and it is not incumbent upon the court of private land claims to determine the priority of right as between him and another grantee. Such private rights are carefully preserved in the 8th and 13th sections.
'But the United States, in dealing with the claimant of lands under Mexican grants, which had come into the political control of our government by the treaty of Mexico, never made pretense that it was the owner of the lands so granted by Mexico. When, therefore, guided by the action of the tribunals which the government had established to pass upon the validity of these alleged grants, it issued a patent to the claimant, it was in the nature of a quitclaim, an admission that the rightful ownership had never been in the United States, but at the time of the cession it had passed to the claimant, or to those under whom he claimed. This principle has been more than once clearly announced in this court. The leading cases are Beard v. Federy, 3 Wall. 478, 18 L. ed. 88; Henshaw v. Bissell, 18 Wall. 268, 21 L. ed. 840; Miller v. Dale, 92 U.S. 478 , 23 L. ed. 738.
We do not wish to be understood as holding that two claimants to the same land may not litigate, as between themselves, which of the two is entitled to a confirmation, and [175 U.S. 60, 71] the question thus becomes res judicata; but when the title has once been confirmed by Congress it should be respected by the court of private land claims as if it were a confirmation by the court itself, and conflicting claimants are at liberty to resort to the ordinary remedies at law or in equity, according to the nature of the claim.
The main object of the court of private land claims is to ascertain and determine whether the land claimed as private property under the treaty is in fact private property, or, on the contrary, is public property. In the latter case, of course, a confirmation is refused; in the former case a confirmation is made if the claimant appears to have, as between himself and the United States, the right to it, but subject to the rights of others who are at liberty to assert their superior title in the local courts.

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