Case Name: JAMES YATES, Respondent, v. E. J. SMITH and J. M. ALLEN, Appellants
Court: Supreme Court of California
Jurisdiction: California
Decision Date: 1869
Citations: 38 Cal. 60
Docket Number: 
Parties: JAMES YATES, Respondent, v. E. J. SMITH and J. M. ALLEN, Appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: California Reports
Volume: 38
Pages: 60–72

Head Matter:
JAMES YATES, Respondent, v. E. J. SMITH and J. M. ALLEN, Appellants.
Confirmation of Survey of Mexican Grant.— Case decided upon the authority of Treadway y. Semple (28 Cal. 652), and Semple v. Wright (32 Cal. 659.) Crockett, J., dissenting.
Idem.—Under the Act of Congress of June 14th, 1860, the confirmation of a survey is a judicial act, and the decree of confirmation has the force of res adjudicata against all persons, whether they intervened or not.
Effect of the Confirmation of Different Surveys of the same Land under Different Grants.—If the owner of a Mexican grant, who has obtained a confirmation of his survey is bound by a subsequent confirmation of a survey embracing the same land under another grant, the latter confirmee is equally bound by the decree approving and confirming the first survey; and in such case the Court will look behind the confirmations, and ascertain which has the prior equity. Ter Crockett, J.
Mexican Grant for a Specific parcel of Land.—The elder grant gives the better title where it calls for a specific and ascertained parcel of land. Crockett, J.
Grant for a Specified Quantity of Land out of a much larger Body. — But, if a grant calls for a specified quantity of land to be located within certain larger exterior limits, the Government thereby reserves to itself the exclusive right to locate the quantity granted. Crockett, J.
Subsequent Grant of a portion of the Overplus.—If the Government subsequently granted to another, a portion of the overplus within certain designated bounds, this is, pro tanto, a location of .the first grant, and an unequivocal declaration that the first grant should not be so located as to include the land embraced in the second. Crockett, J.
Idem.—In such case, the confirmation of the survey under the second grant ought not to be affected by the subsequent confirmation of the survey under the first grant-—there being more than sufficient land, within the exterior limits called for in the grants, to satisfy the requirements of both. Crockett, J.
Appeal from the District Court of the Tenth District, Colusa County.
The facts of this case are minutely detailed in 28 Cal. 652, and in 32 Cal. 659. They are likewise sufficiently recapitulated in the dissenting opinion of Hr. Justice Cbocicett, to render any further statement unnecessary for the full and clear apprehension of the points discussed or decided.
George Cadwallader, for Appellants.
Jo Hamilton, Attorney General, and Haight & Temple, for Respondent.

Opinion:
Rhodes, J., delivered the opinion of the Court:
This case, in its material facts, is not distinguishable from Treadway v. Semple (28 Cal. 652), and Semple v. Wright (32 Cal. 659.) The fact that plaintiff received a conveyance of the premises in controversy before the confirmation of the survey of the Jimeno rancho, is not material, as, under the rule laid down in Rodrigues v. United States (1 Wal. 587)— upon the authority of which these cases were decided—the confirmation of the survey was binding upon all persons, whether they intervened or not. If that rule is believed to be wrong, the correction must be sought in the tribunal that laid it down. Its decisions on questions of this character are binding on us.
Upon the authority of those cases, the judgment of the Court below is reversed, and cause remanded for a new trial.