Case Name: B. POPPE v. P. A. ATHEARN, and P. A. ATHEARN v. B. POPPE
Court: Supreme Court of California
Jurisdiction: California
Decision Date: 1872-01
Citations: 42 Cal. 606
Docket Number: No. 1,395
Parties: B. POPPE v. P. A. ATHEARN, and P. A. ATHEARN v. B. POPPE.
Judges: 
Reporter: California Reports
Volume: 42
Pages: 606–619

Head Matter:
[No. 1,395.]
B. POPPE v. P. A. ATHEARN, and P. A. ATHEARN v. B. POPPE.
Failure to File Pre-emption Claim.—One who settles on unsurveyed public land as a preemptioner, but who fails to file with the Register of the proper Land Office his declaratory statement within three months after the plat of survey of the land is filed in the Register’s office, loses his preemption claim, as against one who in the meantime has taken the necessary steps to acquire the title to the land.
Evidence -of Filing Paper.—An indorsement on the plat of the survey of public land, that it was filed in the Land Office on a day named therein, which is not signed by any one, will, in the absence of other evidence on the subject, be taken as fixing the time of filing the plat.
Who can Complain oe Judgment.—A party to a judgment who has not appealed will not be heard to allege errors in the Court below.
Per RHODES, J., NILES, J., concurring:
Making Holder oe United States Title Trustee tor Holder of State Title to Land.—One who purchases public land from the State, as a part of the five hundred thousand acres to which it became entitled by the Act of Congress of April 4th, 1841, cannot claim the benefit of a patent for the same land, issued by the United States to another person as a preemption, and make him his trustee holding the legal title.
Regulations for Disposal of Public Lands.—The Commissioner of the General Land Office has authority to make regulations respecting the disposal of the public lands, and such regulations, when not repugnant to the Acts of Congress, have the force and effect of laws.
Consent of United States to Entry of Land by State.—A certificate of the Register of United States lands, issued to one who applies to him to locate a State land warrant on public land, that he approves of the location by the State, is a legal and valid consent of the United States to such location, because it is prescribed by the Commissioner of the General Land Office. It is also correct to surrender to the Register the State land warrant.
Sub vet oe Public Lands.—The provisions of the Act of May 3d, 1852, for the survey of public land by County Surveyors, apply to such lands only as have not been surveyed by the United States.
Appeal from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, County of San Joaquin.
The Court below gave judgment in favor of Poppe in the ejectment suit, and dismissed Athearn’s hill in equity against Poppe. Athearn appealed.
The other facts are stated in the opinion delivered by Mr. Justice Crockett, which is here published.
George Cadwalader, for Appellant, argued that as the State patent to Athearn was issued in accordance with the laws of the State, it was valid, and that it devolved on the State to provide for the selection of lands donated to it, and cited Megerle v. Ashe, 27 Cal. 325; Lester’s Land Laws, p. 61, Sec. 8; Bludworthy. Lake, 33 Cal. 262; Coopery. Roberts, 18 Howard, IT. S., 176.
G. W. Tyler, for Respondent.
By the Act of April 16th, 1859 (Hittell’s Dig. Art. 4044), under which appellant’s patent was issued, the patent was not entitled to issue, unless the location was made by the State, with the consent of the Register and Receiver of the United States Land Office (Hittell’s Dig. Art. 4045), and the certificate shows that the assent of the Register only was obtained, which was insufficient to warrant the issuance of the patent.

Opinion:
By Rhodes, J., Niles, J., concurring:
The Court did not find the time of the filing with the Register of the Marysville Land Office of the plat of the survey of the township in which the lands in controversy are situated, but the evidence tending to show the time is recited in the finding. That consisted of the unsigned indorsement on the plat: "Filed in Marysville'Land Office, December 5th, 1855 "—the same indorsement which was in controversy in Megerle v. Ashe, 27 Cal. 322, and the subsequent appeal in the same ease. The Court also found that the [Register and Deceiver, on the 15th of February, 1856, published a notice requiring all persons claiming rights of preemption to file their declaratory statements on or before the 15th day of May, 1856. This finding is attacked, as unsupported by the evidence. The record contains no evidence tending to prove that fact. Both parties proceed on the theory that the plat was filed in the Begister's office. The indorsement, though slight evidence—as was held in Megerle v. Ashe, 33 Cal. 74— will, in the absence of other evidence, be taken as fixing the time of the filing of the plat. Poppe's declaratory statement having been filed on the 16th of April, 1856—which was more than three months after the filing of the plat—came too late to preserve his preemption claim as against one who had, in the meantime, taken the necessary steps to acquire the title to the land.
Poppe insists that the indorsement on the plat was not given in evidence; but, as he has not appealed, he is not in a position to allege that the Court erred in reciting the indorsement in the finding.
The purpose of the suit brought by Athearn against Poppe is, to compel Poppe to convey to Athearn the legal title to the premises in controversy, on the alleged ground of fraud on the part of Poppe in perfecting his preemption claim, and, in pursuance thereof, in procuring a patent from the United States. A conclusive answer to the position of Athearn is, that he claims not as a preemptioner, but as a purchaser from the State; and as such he is not entitled to a patent from the General Government, and, therefore, cannot claim the benefit of the patent issued to Poppe. That suit was properly dismissed.
The questions discussed at the last argument were whether the surrender of the land warrant and the issuing of the Register's certificate were authorized by any law then in force, and whether a location so made authorized the issuing of a patent. The Commissioner of the General Land Office has authority to make regulations respecting the disposal of the public lands, and such regulations, when not repugnant to the Acts of Congress, have the force and effect of laws. In the letter of the Commissioner of the 14th of February, 1854, addressed to the Register of the Land Office at Benicia, he refused to return the warrant to the person who had located it on a tract of land, and directed the Register in such case to issue to the person locating a warrant, a certificate of location. The Commissioner prescribed the form of the certificate, and that form was adopted in this instance, and generally in all other cases of the location of warrants since that time.
Those instructions recognize the surrender of the warrants as the correct practice, and make the certificates issued thereupon by the Register legal and valid. Those certificates of location become the basis of the patents issued by the State. Leaving out of view the question whether the patent should issue before the lands have been listed to the State by the Land Department—as the question has not been discussed in this case—there seems to be no valid ground for saying that the Register's certificate is not sufficient to authorize the proper officers of the State Government to take the requisite steps for the issuing of the patent. The provisions . of the Act of May 3d, 1852, for the survey of the lands by the County Surveyor, and all the proceedings founded on such survey, are applicable only to unsurveyed lands. The observance of those provisions would be useless and vain where the lands have been surveyed by the United States.
Judgment in Athearn v. Poppe affirmed, and judgment in Poppe v. Athearn reversed, and cause remanded for a new trial.