OCR Text |
Show COXMISSIONER OF IWIAN AFFAIRS. lxix treaty of Gandalupe Hidalgo-rights whieh came to them by virtue of $he laws of Mexicosnd of Spain-the patent wasoonclnsire only asbetween theunited Statesand the grantee; and in view of the nature of their claim and the time when their rights attached, we think they are third persons within the meaning of section 15 of the act. (Tesohmctker va. Thompson, Beard us. Federy,,slcpra; United Statas vs. White, 23 Howard United States, 253; Adama cs. Norris, 103 U. S., 593; Miller vs. Dale, 92 Id.. . 473.). The legal title seonred to Estndillo and his grantees must be held by them charged with the right of occop;~nobyy the defendmts. Where a claim was held eubject to soy trust before presentation & the Board, the trustwasnot discharged bya coofirma-tion and subsequent patent. The confirmation inured to the benefit of thseonfirmee only so far as the legal title was concerned. The confirmation evtahliehed the legal title in Estudillo, but did not determine the relation between him an8 third persons. The trust was nut stated, bnt the legal title was none the less anbjeot to the same trust in the hands of the claimant. (Townsend us. Greeley, 5 Wall., 335 ; Hart us. Burnett, 15 Cal., 530.) The defeudants, nnder onr system of pleadings and practice, ere permitted to &ow in ejeatment that the plaintiff holds the legal title, burdened with the Indian right of oocupanoy. (Folton us. Hanlon, 20 Cal., 480.) 3. Respondent relies upon the crase of Thompson us. Doak8um (68 Cal., 594). That oase differs from tbe one at bar in several respects. No olaim whatever was ever presented to the Board of Land Commi~sionsm for confirmation. Section 13 of the act of Maroh 3 provided that "all lands the claims to which shall not have been presented to the Commissioners within two yesm after the date of the sot shall be deemed, held, and considered as pact of the puhlia domain of the United States." The lands claimed bythese defendants are within the bomndnriea of a Mexiom grent confirmed by theBoard of Land Commissioners toEstudillo, it is true, hot, as we have seen, this oonfirmation relieved the defendants of the neoessity of presenting their dainie, and conelosively sdjudioated the faat that the lands were private property and no portion of the poblic domain. The Indians interested in that case were not pueblo or rancheros Indiana, and no duty of ascertaining their rights devolved upon the Land Commission. The Indians therein mentiooedwere never werdsof the Gov-ernment. Furthermore, there waa,in that comea, pre-emption claim filed under the land laws sf the United States, sod the patent porparted to convey both the legal and the equitable title agaiinst the Goverumeut and against all the world, and, of course, oould not be attacked in a collateral proceeding. The title to the lends in oontmversr was never in the United States. The ~ a t e ndte termined the rinhts of the Government and the patentee, but not the rights of third persons. If there was auy-thing in the natnre of a trust before the claim was presented to the Board, that treat was not dischar.e.e d bv" the action of the Land Commissioners or the officers of the Land Department. There is nothing to show that the Indiana referred to in the oase of Thompson us. Doaksnm were civilized or Christianized. Under the suthorities quoted sbove, to be sure, tbey bed the right of oooupancy, hut that right oontinued only so long as ic was recognized by the political power-the exeoutiveor lagisletive depart-ments of the Government. Of course the possession when abandoned by the Indian sttsohes itself to the fee withont filrther grant; and this is true whether therehe any record evidence in favor of the Indians or not. Their right exists only so long as they aotually occupy the land. So long as the defendants and their ancestors were in posseasion of the lands in contrsversy there remained nothing to he done by them nnder the laws of Mexico in order to confirm their right, nor was there anythine to he done hv the Mexican Government or the officersthekof. The rights bf the Indiana had been oampletely wtablished. We think that upon the faota agreed to in this ease the &fendants are entitled to judgment for their oosts. |