Court Opinion

ID: 9416573
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 19:49:38.406631+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:21:29.709620
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice CAMPBELL.,
I concur in the judgment of the court upon the facts disclosed in the record.
I am unable to find evidence to show that the lands in dispute were attáehed to the mission of San Francisco Solano, for the single sentence in the deposition of Vallejo, “ that in 1835, according to the rules of secularization, the grantee hajl acquired the rights of possession,” is too vague, and include too little of a reference to facts to rest any argument that the grant to Solano was of mission lands, contrary to the laws of Mexico. I therefore am not willing to pass any judgment upon the subject of the mission lands of California. Nor do I consider that +-he sufficiency of the conveyance from Solano to Vallejo, a question before us. The conveyance of Solano was recognized before a public officer, and has been followed by possession. For the purposes of this case this is sufficient. This was decided in Percheman’s case, 7 Pet. 51-98. The court say there, that the questions upon the validity of mésne conveyances have no interest to- the United States, and they cannot be investigated or decided.

Order. .

This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record, from the district court of the United States for the northern district of California, and was argued by counsel. On consideration whereof, it is now here ordered, adjudged, and decreed by this court, that the decree of the said district court in this cause be and the same is hereby affirmed.