Court Opinion

ID: 9416787
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 19:55:32.447384+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:13.288724
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice CLIFFORD,
with whom concurred Mr. Justice DAVIS, dissenting.
I dissent from the opinion and decree of the court in this case, for the following reasons :
1. Because the ayuntamiento of Los Angeles never possessed any authority to make such a grant, and it follows of course that the document purporting to be signed by the alcalde is null and void. Argument upon that topic is unnecessary, as the claimants admit that the proposition is correct.
2. Because the additional documents exhibited by the claimants in the District Court show conclusively, not only that those under whom the appellees claim never had any grant from the governor under the colonization laws, but that the governor, when the application was made to him for that purpose, peremptorily refused to make the grant; and that they never had any grant or concession of any kind from the governor of the department.
3. Because possession before the treaty, of the public lands held by the former government, without any title, is not sufficient evidence to warrant a confirmation of such a claim. Authorities to support that proposition are not neccessary, as they are very numerous in the decisions of this court published within the laBt ten years.