United States v. Wilson (66 U.S. 267)

Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the northern district of California.

This was a claim for a tract of land lying near to the mission of San Luis Obispo, containing 300,000 square varas, or about fifty acres of land, and called La Huerta de Romualdo. The claim was based on a grant to one Romualdo, an Indian, by Pio Pico, dated on the 10th of July, 1846. But there was evidence to show that the grantee and those claiming under him had been in possession from a period long anterior to the date of the grant, and that he was put in possession by the legal authorities of the country agreeably to the customs and usages which prevailed concerning the distribution of lots at the missions among the Indians, or 'children of the missions,' as they are called by the Church. The special circumstances connected with the grant of this tract to the Indian Romualdo were detailed in the testimony of Bonilla, the Alcalde of the district, who declared that he acted under the express order of the Governor (Alvarado,) that he placed the grantee in possession, and that he kept a record of his acts, which was lost.

Mr. Black, of Pennsylvania, for the United States. No confirmation can be had under the grant by Pico, because its execution and delivery before the conquest is not shown. Camberton, (21 How., 59;) Fuentes, (22 How., 443;) Pico, (22 How., 406;) Teschmaker, (22 How., 392;) Vallejo, (22 How., 416;) Bolton, (23 How., 341;) Osio, (23 How., 273;) Luco, (23 How., 515;) Pico, (23 How., 321;) Palmer, (24 How., 125;) Castro, (24 How., 346.) The claim must rest upon the testimony of Bonilla and the fact of possession, and it is submitted to the court to say whether that be sufficient. The title is good if it was made according to the laws, customs, and usages of Mexico. There certainly was a custom to distribute lands near the missions among the neophytes. If the history of the country as ascertained from the numerous records which this court has seen shows that the custom existed long enough and was sufficiently uniform to give it the force of law, and if this record proves that it was strictly observed in the present case, then, perhaps, there is no sound objection to the affirmance of the decree of confirmation. The honesty of the claim is not denied, and it has been, as this court knows, the constant policy of the United States not to interpose far-fetched or capricious objections against claims which seemed to be made in good faith for small quantities of land, especially where the claimant was in actual possession himself at the time of the revolution in the government.

No counsel appeared for the claimant.

Mr. Justice NELSON.