OCR Text |
Show : y ae v2 eye ae eS at ha Che Cade Se S4 ae eh oN ‘AC A yi WaiN ie fa eS 00 eet rat iSypae A lands asked for by the persons named. to the Territorial Deputation. 1829. Bado. AA at 5 Pe at : Pa 4‘ Pree AD er Cy Vet's 143 TOMAS ies < peat wit RIS BM ‘ fh . ‘a7 bat 4 ta BACA, JOSE ANTONIO CASADOS and OTHERS. Petition to the Ayuntamiento of San Miguel del Bado for lands. Referred, by Santiago Ulibarri, to the Territorial Deputation and also signed by José Antonio Casados, Secretary of the Ayuntamiento. San Miguel del Bado, April 27, 1829. Ante No. 142, gq. v. ha BAa SAO eA De i ey bat ts ari ® ie ntsy 144 + Hftak ASS ty - At Te i ay Ky? * Les, my ay aS: oa MARIA MIQUELA BACA. Will and inventory. 1831. Garcia, Alcalde. Lars i Juan Francisco Baca. Conveyance of land in the rancho of the Alamo, formerly belonging to Diego Montoya. Before Pablo Montoya. There are no signatures to this document. 4 rAd tw 3 ie Ss ( 146 MICAKLA . a H He yy oa ae Garcia, Al- i oe * ad PO is a * vs. JUAN 1834. In suit of Manuel Bustamante vs. said Sandoval she com- * Ly A a) & ad _- te « te ‘7 ~_— wnat» ‘eee ae A plains of being unjustly deprived of her property, ete. Appealed to the Suprema Corte de Justicia, City of Mexico. Aguilar y Lopez, Clerk of the Supreme Court; Manuel de la Barrera, 1st Official; Don Francisco Sarracino, Governor. 149 TRINIDAD BARCELO Fe, April 9, 1837. vs. PABLO ORTIZ. Question as to a tract of land at Po joaque. Governor; J. M. Alarid, Secretary. Santa Albino Perez, 51 or Maxwell Grant. The Maxwell Land Grant is situated in the northern part of New Mexico, in the county of Colfax; a portion is in the State of Colorado in Las Animas county. After the influx of settlers from the East, in the ‘‘seventies’’ and ‘‘eighties,’’? the title of the grantees was bitterly contested. In August, 1882, the government of the United States filed a bill in chancery in the United States circuit court in Colorado to cancel the patent which had been issued in 1879 for this property, embracing 1,714,000 acres. The case was litigated during a period of five years and was ultimately decided in favor of the company by the supreme court of the United States, which court, in two opinions, one on a motion for re-hearing, sustained the title of the company to the full extent of area as granted by the Mexican government. The government of the United States (the interior department and the department of justice) declined to accept the decision of the as court and final instituted another suit in the courts of New Mexico to cancel the patent which had been made to the grantees, claiming that the lands in New Mexico, which formed a greater part of this property, were not affected by the decision of the nation’s highest The 148 MARIA pe tos DOLORES SANDOVAL GARCIA, Alealde of the City of Santa Fe. Te * Before Juan ARMI- OF NEW MEXICO 150 FOUR PAGES OF THE JOURNAL OF THE TERRITORIAL ASSEMBLY in which are recorded the Proceedings had in relation to the Beaubien and Miranda supreme Ante No. 144, q. v. ek iy * 1832. alae as to a tract of land. ealde. tl * (Maria Micaela Baca.) 147 JUAN MANUEL BAOCA vs. JUAN ANTONIO JO. Santa Fe, April 28, 1832. Ba oe* BACA. Distribution of estate. io . i. y a + Le * P . o4 ; b County of Santa Fe. 145 JESUS MARIA ALARID to José May 18,1831. County of Santa Fe. hate sa De hal ee ed h Report is made San Miguel del J cd 4 THE SPANISH ARCHIVES THESPANISH ARCHIVES OF NEW MEXICO tribunal. Maxwell Le Company set up the decision of the su- preme court as a defense to this suit; it was heard before Reeves, then J., presiding over the first judicial district of the Territory of New Mexico, and the plea of res adjudicata was sustained and the bill dismissed. An appeal was taken by the government to the territorial supreme court, where the decision of the lower court was affirmed. The opinion extract) follows: of the New Mexican court supreme (an ae “The United States brought suit in the circuit court for the United States for the District of Colorado, to set The aside, vacate and cancel the patent assailed here. bill in that case is grounded upon allegations of fraud committed by the patentees and others holding through or under them, by means of which the officers of the |