Case Name: S. C. HASTINGS, Respondent, v. JOHN DEVLIN, Appellant
Court: Supreme Court of California
Jurisdiction: California
Decision Date: 1870-10
Citations: 40 Cal. 358
Docket Number: No. 1,124
Parties: S. C. HASTINGS, Respondent, v. JOHN DEVLIN, Appellant.
Judges: Curry, C. J.r and Shatter, J., 'expressed no opinion.
Reporter: California Reports
Volume: 40
Pages: 358–373

Head Matter:
No. 1,124.
S. C. HASTINGS, Respondent, v. JOHN DEVLIN, Appellant.
Location op School Land Waeeant on Unsubveyed Lands. — The location of a school land warrant issued under the Act of May 3, 1852, upon xm-surveyed lands of the united States, is void and confers no right whatever upon the locator.
Evidence. — Illegal Cebtificate. — A certificate issued by a Begister of the United States Land Office, which was unauthorized by statute or by regulation of the Land Department of the United States, is inadmissible in evidence in an action involving title to land.
Appeal from the District Court of the Seventh District, Solano County.
Plaintiff claims that title to the premises in dispute, vested June 20th, A. d. 1858, in I. Thomas, by virtue of the location of School Land Warrant No’. 133, under and in accordance with the provisions of the Act of the Legislature of the State of California, passed May 3, 1882, entitled, “An Act to provide for the disposal of the five hundred thousand acres of land granted to this State by Act of Congress” of September 4, 1841, and that plaintiff acquired title by a Sheriff’s deed.
Defendant denies the location of said land warrant, and shows in himself actual possession and a patent from the State, dated March 20th, 1863. This patent issued upon a location of a school land warrant located February 14,1857.
Plaintiff offered in evidence under objection and exception on the part of defendant, three several documents, to show that title had vested in I. Thomas by a location of said Land Warrant No. 133. First — A certified copy of the County Becords showing an attempt to locate the warrant by the County Surveyor under the Act of May 3, 1852. Second — The-following certificate of the Register of the United States Land Office at Benicia;
Land Office, j
Benicia, December 24th, a. d. 1863.)
No. 9. It is hereby certified that I. Thomas has this day located at this office the south half of Sec. No. 14, Township No. 5, North, Range No. 1 West, containing 320 acres, under Warrant No. 133 issued under the Act of the California Legislature approved the 3d day of May, 1852, in part satisfaction of the grant made by the 8th section of the Act of Congress approved the 4th day of September, 1841.
[Signed] W. W. Gift,
Taken for 320 acres. Register.
Third — The following document purporting to be a certificate of the Register of the Land Office at Stockton:
State of CALIFORNIA, )
United States Land Office, Stockton District. V
December 26th, 1864. j
I, S. T. Nye, Register of the United States' Land Office for the Stockton Land District, do hereby certify that the California State School Land Warrant No. 133, issued in the name of Samuel P. White for three hundred and twenty acres, was located by I. Thomas on the 24th day of December, Í853, upon the south half of Section 14, in Township No. 5, North, Range No. 1 West, Mount Diablo meridian, is now on file, and that the word surrendered has been written across the face of said warrant; and I further certify that the lands above described have been duly surveyed by authority of the United States Government, and the plats of such survey have been approved by the Surveyor-General, and that the location conforms to such survey, and that the location of such warrant has been made or filed in the United States Land Office for the district in w'hich the land is situated, with the consent of the Register and Receiver of the San Francisco Land Office.
Witness my hand and official seal this 26th day of December, 1864. S. T. Nte,
[seal] Register.
Judgment was for plaintiff. Defendant mowed for a new trial, which was -denied and he appealed.
The other facts are stated in the opinion.
M. A. Wheqion, for Appellant.
First — The first document offered in evidence by plaintiff, merely showed an attempt to locate a school land warrant upon unsurveyed lands, and for this reason alone it was clearly inadmissable. In addition to this, however, it was only a temporary location under the State law of May 3, 1852; and this law does not provide that such location shall vest the title, but only gives a right of possession until the lands are surveyed. (Statute 1852, p. 868.)
Section 14 of the Act providing that patents should issue under some future law, affirmatively shows that the Legislature did not intend such location to vest any title. As this Act only provides for such locations to be made upon unsurveyed lands, any location under the Act must be utterly void.
Second — The certificate of Gift was issued without any authority of law whatever. There was no law in December, 1863, authorizing the Register of the Land Office to either make or issue any such certificate. The most that can be claimed for the law of Congress is that it authorized the State to select by its authorized agent, the lands granted for internal improvements. Taking sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 11 and 14, of the Act of May 3, 1852, together, and it is plain that it provides only for-the location of land warrants upon unsurveyed lands, and does not provide either by language or intention, for selecting the lands through the United States Land Office.
The Act does not in any place refer to the United States Land Office at all; it does not refer to the United Statesé Register at all; it does not provide for filing the warrants in any United States office, or with any United States officer, either at the time of the location or at any future time. It only provides for a temporary location, leaving it for future Legislatures to provide the-method of converting such locations in the County offices into regular State selections in the United States Office.
There was therefore no law, either of this State or of the United States, for making the location as certified to, and and none for making or issuing tbe certificate, and the certificate was not therefore even prima facie evidence of title. Indeed it was not evidence at all — no evidence, either of the truth of what it recited or of anything else.
Third — The certificate of S. T. Nye, Register of the Stockton Land Office, is void upon its face. It is without any authority of law, and incompetent as evidence.
William 8. Wells, for Respondent.
The action of the United States officer in accepting our location is not open to objection. It Avas the action of the Executive Department of the Government in carrying into effect the grant to the State, and the mode and manner of its exercise is not subject to review by the Courts, particularly when both parties claim under the same grant, (iiic-Larry v. Sullivan, 2 Wheaton, 369; Mclntire v. Wood, 7 Cranch. 504; United States v. Fevreira, 13 How. 40, 52; Foley v. Harrison, 15 Id. 433; 2 Washburn on Real Property, 528; quoted from 5 Porter’s Ala. Rep., p. 243; McGonnell v. Wilcox, 1 Scammon, 345.)
It will, in the nature of things, be a qualification to any grant that it shall not affect pre-existing titles emanating from the same source. We cannot countenance the presumption that the Government will do that which, in the subject, we denominate fraud — that is, grant the same land twice.
The location of Thomas and the subsequent conveyance, vest the title in the plaintiff.
The Act of 1852 provides for the sale of the warrants, prescribes the manner of their location and ex industries, proAddes that the location shall secure the right of possession to the locator until the- Government survey be made, and then shall be made to conform thereto. (Stat. 1852, p. 860. Hittel’s Dig. Art. 3975.)
The same Act provides for the issuance of a patent (Art. 3984,) and the Act of April 30, 1857, expressly saves all rights acquired under the Act-of 1852.
We do not pretend to stand upon anything in the nature of an equitable title, but upon strict legal right — a priority of purchase and location, evidenced by the most public act and by a record which of itself, imparts notice of our claim and makes the subsequent action of the defendant, fraudulent as against our claim. (Watson v. Bobey, 9 Cal. 54.)
As regards the effect of our location, we cite: (Nims v. Palmer, 6 Cal. 13; Watson v. Bobey, (Supra)-, Dollx. Header, 16 Cal. 296; Vallcenburg v. McCloud, 21 Id. 330; Bhodes v. Craig, 21 Id. 419.)
In the case of Moore v. Wilkinson, (13 Cal. 478,) the Court says: “Individuals can resist the conclusiveness of the patent only by showing that it conflicts-with prior rights vested in themselves.” “ The most we find claimed by the authorities, as to the conclusiveness of a patent, is that it so operates against all those whose rights did not commence previous to its emanation.” (2 Washburne on Beal Property, 526.)
This Court in Doll v. Header, cited above, seem to except, throughout the opinion, the case where a party with a title from a common source conflicts with a patent. (Terry v. Megerle, 24. Cal. 609; Kilev. Tubbs, 23 Id. 432; JMegerle v. Ashe, 27 Id. 322.)
Under these decisions we insist that the location of the land vests a title which needs no further act or patent to convey; that a title thus vested is, as a title by grant, equal to a patent, and if prior in time, prior also in right; and that under such circumstances, the effect of the patent is well described as not conclusive, “as against a grant made by the legislative department prior thereto;”- and that it could have no operation beyond that of a mere-quitclaim.

Opinion:
Sawyer, J.,
delivered the opinion of the Court, Sander-SON, J., and Bhodes, J., concurring:
This is an action to recover land. The plaintiff relies upon a location of a school land warrant made in 1853, under the Act of May 3, 1852, authorizing the location of school land warrants on lands-of the United States, as a part of the five hundred thousand acres granted to the State by the eighth section of the Act of Congress of September 4, 1841. The defendant is in possession, claiming title under a patent from the State, dated March 20, 1863, issued in pursuance of the location of a school land warrant, made February 14, 1857. The plaintiff must show title to enable him to recover. H.e introduced in evidence, under objection and exception' on the part of defendant, a certified copy from the County Becorder's office, of a survey made by the County Surveyor of Solano County, on the 20th of June, 1853, at the request of one Isaac Thomas, for the purpose of locating School Land Warrant No. 133, in pursuance of the provisions of the Act of May 3, 1852. It was filed for record June 25, 1853, and all the acts required by statute had been performed on that day. At this time, the final surveys by the United States had not been made. We have already held that unsurveyed lands are not subject to selection under the Act of Congress; and that the locations of school land warrants under the Act of May 3, 1852, upon such lands, conferred no right whatever on the locator. (Terry v. Megerle, 24 Cal. 610; Grogan v. Knight, 27 Id. 520.) The location of School Land Warrant No. 133, on the 20th and 25th of June, 1853, was a nullity and conferred no rights in the land upon the locator. No subsequent Act of the Legislature has been called to our attention — and we have found none passed since the final survey, which constitutes the said location a valid selection on behalf of the State of the lands so located, or renders that Act valid. It was void when made, and has not been made valid by any subsequent legislation. Subsequent Acts have been passed authorizing warrants issued under the Act of 1852, to be located upon surveyed lands, subject to selection; but no evidence was introduced showing that Warrant No. 133, had been located upon the lands in question, in pursuance of such subsequent Acts. The rights of plaintiff, so far as shown by the evidence, depend upon the- location, under the Act of 1852, and, as we have seen, that location conferred no right at all. The certificate was, for the reason indicated, improperly admitted in evidence, and, being in, shows no right to recover.
We know of no statute of California, or of tbe United States, authorizing the performance of the acts -set forth in the certificate of Gift, Register of the Land Office at Benicia, of December 24, 1863, or any statute or principle of law making the certificate evidence of the facts • stated. Its admission in evidence was error. The same may be said in respect to the admissibility of the certificate of S. T. Nye, Register of the Stockton Land Office, of December 26th, 1864. This certificate is not a certified copy of any record in his office. It is simply a statement of facts within his knowledge relating to past transactions. We have not been referred to any statute or authority showing such statements to be competent evidence for the purpose for which it is now sought to be used. It is offered in evidence in a Court of justice upon a litigated point respecting title to lands- — not presented as the certificate of an officer of one Department of the Government, for the information of another upon a matter relating to the duties of his office, in pursuance of the provisions of some statute, or regulation of the respective-departments describing the course of their proceedings. Nor is it offered to show the fact that such a certificate was presented to and acted upon by an officer of the Government, or was the link in the chain of an official proceeding resulting in a patent. It was offered as competent evidence to establish the facts therein recited. We know of no statute or principle of law, taking this certificate out of the ordinary rules of evidence applicable to proceedings in Courts of justice. We think it was improperly admitted. The view taken renders it unnecessary to consider the question as to the validity of defendant's patent.
Judgment and order denying a new trial reversed, and a new trial granted.
Curry, C. J.r and Shatter, J., 'expressed no opinion.