Case Name: CHARLES McLAUGHLIN, Respondent, v. CHRISTOPHER HEID, Appellant
Court: Supreme Court of California
Jurisdiction: California
Decision Date: 1883-02-27
Citations: 63 Cal. 208
Docket Number: 
Parties: CHARLES McLAUGHLIN, Respondent, v. CHRISTOPHER HEID, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: California Reports
Volume: 63
Pages: 208–218

Head Matter:
[In Bank.
February 27, 1883.]
CHARLES McLAUGHLIN, Respondent, v. CHRISTOPHER HEID, Appellant.
Ejectment—Congeessional Gbant—Patent.—In an action of ejectment based on a patent purporting to have been issued in pursuance of a grant by Congress, it is competent for the defendant to attack the validity of the patent on the ground that the land was excepted from the grant.
Appeal from a judgment of the late District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, county of San Joaquin, and from an order refusing a new trial.
J. H. Ludd, for Appellant.
Lands within the limits of the tract of land called “Moqueemos” were not sold or .granted under the authority of the United States to the Western Pacific Railroad Company. (McLaughlin v. Fowler, 52 Cal. 203; Newhall v. Sanger, 92 U. S. 761.)
The patent for the defendant having been for land reserved from such appropriation is void.
To the same effect are the cases of Patterson v. Winn, 11 Wheat. 380; Easton v. Salisbury, 21 How. 432; Kissell v. St. Louis Schools, 18 How. 27; Summers v. Dickenson, 9 Cal. 554; Carr v. Quigley, 57 Cal. 394; Doll v. Meador, 16 Cal. 325; Terry v. Megerle, 24 Cal. 609.
Patents issued without authority of law, for land, are absolutely void. (Summers v. Dickenson, 9 Cal. 554; Parker v. 47 Cal. 554; People v. Carrick, 51 Cal. 325; Easton v. Salisbury, 21 How. 432; Stoddard v. Chambers, 2 How. 318; Polk’s Lessee v. Wendal, 9 Cranch, 87; Patterson v. Winn, 11 Wheat. 380; Wilcox v. Jackson, 13 Peters, 511; Kissell v. St. Louis Schools, 18 How. 27; Reichart v. Felps, 6 Wall. 160; Wright v. Rutgers, 14 Mo. 585.
IZie/i. Mullany, of counsel for Appellant.
YV/y i?. Wise, for Respondent.
The question is whether in an action of ejectment a person having no title can give in evidence facts that would render a patent perfect on its face null and void. We maintain that such evidence is inadmissible. (Bledsoe’s Devisees v. Well, 4 Bibb. 329; Dolly. Meador, 16 Cal. 327; Jackson v. Lawton, 10 Johns. 24; Patterson v. Tatum, 3 Sawy. 172; Dodge v. Perez, 2 Sawy. 654; Jackson v. May, 16 Johns. 184; Jackson v. Hudson, 3 Johns. 374; Mowry v. Whitney, 14 Wall. 434; U. S. v. Atherton, 102 U. S. 372; U. S. v. Schurz, 102 U. S. 404; Marquez v. Frisbie, 101 U. S. 475; Chapman v. Quinn, 56 Cal. 256; French v. Fyan, 93 U. S. 169; Shepley v. Cowan, 91 U. S. 339; 93 U. S. 169.)
Upon questions of fact the decision of the land office is conclusive. (Dilla v. Bohall, 53 Cal. 710; Powers v. Leith, 53 Cal. 711.)
Whenever authority is given to issue a patent upon a prior state of facts,' the authority to ascertain the facts is implied.
The judicial department has no authority to decide questions except when the law gives it. (Berry v. Cammet, 44 Cal. 347; Hosmer v. Wallace, 47 Cal. 461; Hestres v. Brennan, 50 Cal. 211; Weaver v. Fairchild, 50 Cal. 360.)
There is nothing in the world that is more a question of fact than the location of a Mexican grant. (Hildebrand v. Stewart, 41 Cal. 387; Burrell v. Haw, 40 Cal. 373; Hess v. Bolinger, 48 Cal. 349; Rutledge v. Murphy, 51 Cal. 388.)
In this case the appellant did not appeal to -he commissioner and he could not defeat us in equity. (See Sac. Savings Bank v. Hynes, 50 Cal. 196.) Shipley v. Cowan, 91 U. S. 340, also holds that the rulings of the land officers are conclusive.
The Statute of Limitations has run in our favor against all the world but the government. (See Lord v. Sawyer, 57 Cal. 65.)
F. T. Baldwin, and J. C. Campbell, also for Respondent.

Opinion:
The facts sufficiently appear in the opinion of the court.
Per Curiam.
This was an action of ejectment in which judgment was rendered for plaintiff. This appeal is prosecuted by defendant.
The plaintiff claimed under a patent of the United States purporting on its face to have been issued under a grant of land made to the Central Pacific Railroad Company, and the Western Pacific Railroad Company, by acts of Congress passed in the years 1862 and 1864. This patent was offered in evidence, together with other evidence, and to both patent and the evidence referred to, various objections were made by defendant. These objections were overruled by the court, and exceptions were reserved by defendant to its rulings, as to which we consider it only necessary to say that we find no error in the rulings excepted to-.
To defeat the recovery by plaintiff defendant offered to show that at the time of the grant by Congress under which the patent to plaintiff's grantor purports to have been issued, the land in controversy was included within the exterior limits of a tract of land claimed as a Mexican grant, and known as "Moquelamos," which was reserved from the grant to the railroads mentioned; that afterwards, on the 5th of December, 1876, he (defendant) was a qualified pre-emptor, and as such entered on the land in dispute for the purpose of acquiring the title thereto under the pre-emption laws of the United States, and has improved the land and continued to reside thereon ever since; that at the time of his settlement the land was and ever since has been surveyed agricultural land of the United States, and subject to pre-emptian; that on the 1st day of February, 1877, he (defendant) prepared and offered to file in the land office of the proper district his declaratory statement in due form of law, of his claim to the land, and that the register of the land office, without right refused to permit him to do so, from which decision of the register he appealed, and his appeal is still pending and undetermined before the commissioner of the general land office at Washington. This offer was excluded by the court, and defendant reserved an exception to the ruling.
This was held to be error in Carr v. Quigley, 57 Cal. 395, which cause was decided by Department One, and on petition for rehearing was approved by the court in Bank. On the authority of that case the judgment and order are reversed and cause remanded for a new trial.