United States v. Widow and Heirs of West

THIS was an appeal from the District Court of the United States for the northern district of California.

The case is stated in the opinion of the court.

It was argued by Mr. Stanton, upon a brief filed by the Attorney General, for the United States, and by Mr. Benham for the appellees.

The principal question was, whether the alteration in the grant vitiated it altogether. Upon this point, the Attorney General said:

I have already said that I think there was a grant issued by Jimeno in 1840, which at the time it issued was honest and genuine. If no claim had been made for more than the league and a half comprehended within the boundaries of that grant. The case would have been a clear one in favor of the claimants. But I insist that a provisional or equitable grant, which may be converted into a legal title upon the contingency of an approval by the Departmental Assembly, and the performance of other conditions, must be regarded as wholly abandoned when the conditions were not complied with, and another and a different claim set up under a forged title.

To this argument, Mr. Benham replied:

The claimants derive title by succession. The grant of the 2d of November is admitted to be genuine. It must be confirmed, to the extent of one league and a half. Its alteration did not divest the rights which vested under it. It is immaterial who made the alteration; although, as a matter of fact, it was not made by the claimants, or with their knowledge or consent.

There is another grant in the archives, which vested the land (the league and a half) in West.

Lewis v. Payn, 8 Cowen, pages 75, 76.

Jackson v. Gould, 7 Wendell, p. 364.

Hatch v. Hatch, 9 Mass., top pages 293, 297, 298.

Doe v. Hirst, 3 Starkie's Rep., p. 60.

Hennick v. Malin, 22 Wendell, p. 391.

3 Preston's Abstracts, 103.

2 H. Blackstone, 263.

Buller's N. P., 267.

The position of Mr. Attorney General, that the alteration of the grant is an abandonment of title, which will prevent confirmation by this court, is not tenable. It cannot be held there was any abandonment when the claimants continued, as they have always done, to occupy the land.

All the conditions imposed by the Jimeno grant were complied with.

Mr. Justice WAYNE delivered the opinion of the court.