1. The assignee of a Mexican title was not prohibited from
presenting his case to the land commissioners in his own name, and
where he was assignee of the whole claim, that was his proper
method of proceeding.
2. But where the land claimed was portioned out among many
vendees, the proper party to the proceeding was the original
grantee, who could produce the documents of title and who best knew
how to establish it.
Page 67 U. S. 611
3. Though the assignee of a portion of a claim is not absolutely
estopped by a decree of this Court adverse to the title under which
lie holds, he cannot expect to shake that decree without producing
new evidence which proves it to be erroneous.
4. The government cannot be required to give two patents for the
same land, one to the original claimant and the other to his
vendee.
5. Where the original Mexican grantee filed his petition for a
confirmation of the title, and several of his assignees petitioned
also for the confirmation of the parts conveyed to them, the
commissioners should have consolidated all the cases.
6. It was their duty to establish the boundary as well as
validity of the Mexican grant as between the original grantee and
the government, but not to arbitrate the disputes of the several
assignees.
On the first of March, 1853, Hiram Grimes filed his petition in
the California Land Commission, on his own behalf and as executor
of Eliab Grimes, deceased, praying confirmation of a title to
certain lands derived from Mexico through and under John A. Sutter.
On the 15th of January, 1856, the land commissioners rejected the
claim, whereupon Grimes appealed to the district court. On the 6th
of March, 1857, that court made its decree reversing the decision
of the land commission and confirming the title. From this decree
the United States appealed. The facts necessary to an understanding
of the case are stated in the opinion of the Court.
MR. JUSTICE GRIER.
The petitioner is assignee of John A. Sutter "of a part of the
place called New Helvetia." Under this name, Sutter claimed title
to two several grants from the Mexican government -- one for eleven
leagues, granted to him by
Page 67 U. S. 612
Juan B. Alvarado on 18th of June, 1841, the other for twenty-two
leagues, called his "sobrante grant," purporting to be issued by
Micheltorena at Santa Barbara on the 5th of February, 1845. Many
persons had purchased portions of this great tract. A separate
application from each of those vendees to the commissioners for a
several confirmation of the portion assigned to him, would have
caused great expense, trouble and delay. Accordingly, Sutter very
properly filed his petition for the confirmation of these two
grants for the benefit of himself and his several assignees. His
title has been fully considered and decided by this Court.
See 62 U. S. 21
How. 178. The first grant of eleven leagues was adjudged valid, the
other was rejected. The patent to Sutter for the eleven leagues
will, of course, enure to the benefit of all his vendees. Those who
claim under the sobrante title will take nothing. Whether the
portions sold will be found within either or neither of these
grants to Sutter must depend upon surveys made or to be made since
the confirmation of his grant by this Court. It is true the
assignee of a Mexican title may present his case before the
commissioners, and where he is assignee of the whole claim, there
may be no impropriety in it. But if the land claimed has been
divided out among a thousand vendees, as in this case, the proper
party to the proceeding is the original grantee, who can produce
the documents of title and who best knows how to establish it. As
in the case of
Neleigh, 1
Black 298, who claimed a part of the grant to Castro, which had
been rejected by this Court, we may say that though the assignee is
not absolutely estopped by a decree of the court to which he was
not a party, yet as he has furnished no new evidence to show that
decree erroneous, he cannot expect the Court to change it. If any
part of the land for which he has petitioned is within the eleven
leagues, the patent which has or will be given to Sutter will
confirm his title, and further proceedings in this suit would be
wholly superfluous. The government cannot be required to give two
patents for the same land, one to the vendor and another to the
vendee. Where there are divers vendees under one original title and
the Mexican grantee has filed his petition before the commissioners
for a
Page 67 U. S. 613
confirmation of his title, and there are others, his assignees,
who have petitioned also, the commissioners should have
consolidated all the cases. The law does not require them to locate
the boundaries of the several grantees or settle any disputes
between them or to give a thousand different patents to every
several claimant of a town lot. It is their duty to establish the
boundary as well as validity of the Mexican grant as between him
and the government, and not to arbitrate the disputes of the
several assignees.
The court below confirmed the whole claim of the petitioner
because it was within the thirty-three leagues which they had
already confirmed to Sutter. But as that judgment was reversed as
to twenty-two leagues, the judgment in this case must have the same
course. If any portion of his claim be found within the eleven
leagues, he needs no further title; if it does not, he can have
none.
The judgment and decree of the court below is
reversed.
