A Synopsis of Each Case Decided by the United States Supreme Court Upon Appeal from the Court of Private Land Claims.
| No. | Name of Grant | Case Name/Citation | Opinion |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Town of Cubero Grant |
United States v. Chaves, 159 U.S. 452 (1895). |
Opinion by Justice Shiras. Held: Testimony and evidence to explain loss of grant papers sufficient to sustain grant. |
| 2 | Los Nogales de Elias Grant |
Ainsa v. United States, 161 U.S. 208 (1896). |
Opinion by Chief Justice Fuller. Held: A floating grant within a larger tract would have to be located prior to the date of the Gadsden Treaty in order to be valid. |
| 3 | City of Santa Fe Grant |
United States v. City of Santa Fe, 165 U.S. 675(1897). |
Opinion by Justice White. Held: Spanish towns were not entitled to four square leagues of land by operation of law. |
| 4 | San Miguel del Vado Grant |
United States v. Sandoval, 167 U.S, 278 (1897). |
Opinion by Chief Justice Fuller. Held: Grant for purpose of forming town did not vest grantees with absolute title to any land other than that occupied by them under individual allotments. |
| 5 | Cañon de Chama Grant |
Rio Arriba Land & Cattle Co. v. United States, 167 U.S. 298 (1897). |
Opinion by Chief Justice Fuller. Held: Fact that Congress confirmed similar grant does not authorize Ct. Pvt. L. Cl. to confirm a grant which does not fall within the terms of is creation. |
| 6 | Cañada de Cochiti Grant |
Whitney v. United States, 167 U.S. 529 (1897). |
Opinion by Justice Brown. Held: Where description in grant papers is ambiguous and there are two objects, either one of which may have been the one intended, the burden of establishing the further one as the true boundary is on the claimant. |
| 7 | Bartolome Baca Grant |
Bergere v. United States, 168 U.S. 66 (1897). |
Opinion by Justice Peckham. Held: (a) A presumption of approval by governor of a grant could not arise where alcalde, who was directed to deliver possession and return expediente for approval, gave possession of more land than was requested in petition and approval was not noted in the grant papers. (b) An imperfect grant, in order to be confirmed by Ct. Pvt. L. Cl., must be one which the claimant could, by right and not by grace, have demanded be made perfect by former sovereign. |
| 8 | Cañon de San Diego Grant |
Chaves v. United States, 168 U.S. 177 (1897). |
Opinion by Chief Justice Fuller. Held: Where grant made to two brothers was included within a subsequent and larger grant issued for the purpose of establishing a town and the two brothers joined in the petition, their participation in the subsequent grant showed an abandonment of the prior grant.
|
| 9 | Pueblos of Zia, Santa Ana and Jemez Grant |
Pueblo of Zia v. United States, 168 U.S. 198 (1897). |
Opinion by Justice Brown. Held: A grant to three pueblos for purposes of pasturing stock was merely a license, which was revoked when the United States acquired New Mexico. |
| 10 | San Antonito Grant |
Crespin v. United States, 168 U.S. 208 (1897). |
Opinion by Justice Brown. Held: (a) The power given prefects under the Mexican law of March 20, 1837 to regulate the distribution of common lands in the towns and districts did not authorize them to make grants of public lands. (b) The possession of land for six or eight years prior to the transfer of jurisdiction to the United States was not sufficient to constitute title by prescription against the sovereign. |
| 11 | John Heath Grant |
Cessna v. United States, 169 U.S. 165 (1898). |
Opinion by Justice Brewer. Held: Ayuntamiento had no authority to make a valid grant outside its grant. |
| 12 | Arroyo de San Lorenzo Grant |
Hayes v. United States, 170 U.S. 637 (1898). |
|
| 13 | El Paso de los Algodones Grant |
United States v. Coe, 170 U.S. 681 (1898).
Rehearing. United States v. Coe, 174 U.S.. 578 (1899). |
Opinion by Justice McKenna. Held: A sale of land made by the State Board of Sales in the name of the State and national government while the State was in rebellion, which did not comply with the prescribed procedures and had not been approved by the national government, was invalid. Opinion by Chief Justice Fuller. Held: After 1836, State had no power to make valid sale unless subsequently approved by national government. |
| 14 | San Jose de Sonoita Grant |
Ely’s Adm’r.v.United States, 171 U.S. 220 (1898). |
Opinion by Justice Brewer. Held: (a) There can be no presumption that granting officer had power to make a valid grant merely as a result of his actions. (b) The confirmation of a grant for the quantity of land bought and paid for fulfills the United States treaty obligations. |
| 15 | San Ignacio de la Canoa Grant |
United States v. Maish, 171 U.S. 244 (1898). |
Opinion by Justice Brewer. Held: Confirmation of a grant should be limited to amount purchased and paid for, and for no more. |
| 16 | Tumacacori, Calabazos and Huebabi Grant |
Faxon v. United States, 171 U.S. 244 (1898). |
Opinion by Chief Justice Fuller. Held: In order for the Ct.Pvt.L.Cl. to confirm a grant, it must be shown satisfactorily that the grant proceedings were regular and the granting officer had authority. |
| 17 | San Rafael del Valle Grant |
Camou v. United States, 171 U.S. 277 (1898).
United States v. Camou, 184 U.S. 572 (1901). |
Opinion by Justice Brewer. Held: Between 1824 and 1836 the Law of August 4, 1824, which granted to the states revenues not reserved by the federal government, authorized the Mexican states to make valid sales of the public lands within their borders. Opinion by Justice Shiras. (Based upon further proceedings following remand, Ct. Pvt.L.Cl. partially confirmed grant and government appealed.) Held: Survey covered the land which had been purchased and possessed, and was not merely a location of a float of uncertain boundaries and extent within the exterior boundaries of a larger tract. |
| 18 | Ignacio de Babocomari Grant |
Perrin v. United States, 171 U.S. 292 (1898). |
Opinion by Justice Brewer. Held: Since this grant was similar to the San Rafael del Valle Grant, the case was remanded to give the claimants an opportunity to identify the boundaries of the grant. |
| 19 | Albuquerque Grant | United States v. City of Albuquerque, 171 U.S. 685 (1898). | No written opinion. Reversed on grounds of Santa Fe case. |
| 20 | Cuyamungue Grant |
United States v. Conway, 175 U.S. 60 (1899). |
Opinion by Justice Brown. Justices Shiras and White dissented. Held: Lands previously confirmed by Act of Congress should be excepted from a decree of confirmation, even though the previously confirmed grant was void. |
| 21 | Real de Dolores del Oro Grant |
Town of Real de Dolores del Oro Grant v. United States, 175 U.S. 71(1899). |
Opinion by Justice Brown. Justices Shiras and White dissented. Held: A claim located within a grant confirmed by Congress and patented was properly rejected by the Ct. Pvt. L. Cl., and indemnity cannot be made when not requested in the petition. |
| 22 | Ojo del Apache Grant |
Hays v. United States, 175 U.S. 248 (1899). |
Opinion by Justice Brown. Held: A grant of public land by an alcalde was void for want of authority. |
| 23 | Petaca Grant |
United States v. Pena, 175 U.S. 500 (1899). |
Opinion by Justice Brewer. Held: Where it appears that the grantees were given possession of only their individual allotments and there was no evidence of delivery of the entire tract, confirmation will be limited to the allotted lands. |
| 24 | Gutierrez and Sedillo Grant |
United States v. Chavez, 175 U.S. 509 (1899). |
Opinion by Justice McKenna. Held: Long and uninterrupted possession of real property, in the absence of rebutting circumstances, creates a presumption that formal instruments or records of title once existed, even though they could not be found. This presumption extends to all that is necessary to establish title. |
| 25 | Vallecito de Lobato Grant |
Peabody v. United States, 175 U.S. 546 (1899). |
Opinion by Justice Peckham. Held: A petition asking to be put in possession of land in order not to lose time in planting grain, and possession delivered in response thereto, amounted to a mere license, which terminated upon the change of sovereignty. Mention of the “grant” in other instruments is inadequate proof of the issuance of a valid concession. |
| 26 | Nerio Antonio Montoya Grant |
Chavez v. United States, 1 75 U.S. 552 (1899). |
Opinion by Justice Peckham. Held: It cannot be presumed that the governor made a grant merely because he was ex officio president of the Territorial Deputation; which purported to make the concession. Possession of the land for 15 years prior to the change of sovereignty is insufficient to raise a presumption of grant. |
| 27 | Sierra Mosca Grant |
United States v. Ortiz, 176 U.S. 422 (1900). |
Opinion by Justice White. Held: A claimant is charged with the duty of tendering proof as to the existence, regularity and archive record of the grant, as well as his connection with it. Signatures of Mexican officers or documents produced from the archives may be admitted in evidence as standards of comparison, where an issue of forgery is involved. |
| 28 | Cebolla Grant |
United States v. Elder, 177 U.S. 104 (1900). |
Opinion by Justice White. Held: (a) To vest an applicant with title to land under the Regulations of November 21, 1828, substantial compliance with the preliminary requisites to a grant was essential. (b) An endorsement by the governor, directing a prefect to investigate and place the applicant in possession, amounted to a mere license, which terminated upon the cession of the territory to the United States. |
| 29 | Las Animas Grant |
Las Animas Land Grant Co. v. United States, 179 U.S. 201 (1900). |
Opinion by Justice Peckham. Held: A claim for the remainder of a grant, which had been confirmed in part by Congress, was not within the jurisdiction of the Ct. Pvt. L. Cl. |
| 30 | Estancia Grant |
Whitney v. United States, 181 U.S. 104 (1901). |
Opinion by Justice Peckham. Held: A grant made in 1845 by the governor is incomplete if there is no showing that it was approved by the departmental Assembly or the Supreme Executive. |
| 31 | San Pedro Grant |
Reloj Cattle Co.v. United States, 184 U.S. 624 (1902). |
Opinion by Chief Justice Fuller. Held: Where a tract had been sold by Mexican officials covering a certain quantity of land described as being a larger tract and which larger tract, after the Gadsden Purchase, was located in the United States and Mexico and where the claimants had agreed to the location of the purchased land in Mexico and purchased the excess land in the Mexican portion of the grant, the claim was fully satisfied and the United States had no obligation to the claimants . |
| 32 | Arivaca Grant |
Arivaca Land & Cattle Co. v. United States, 184 U.S. 649 (1902). |
Opinion by Chief Justice Fuller. Held: Where two sitios of land had been granted and the grant described a larger tract, the grant would fail if the location of the two sitios could not be determined. |
| 33 | San Jose de Encinal Grant |
United States v. Baca, 184 U.S. 653 (1902). |
Opinion by Justice Gray. Held: Any decision on the merits of a claim under a Spanish grant located within a confirmed grant is forbidden by the Act of March 3, 1891. |
| 34 | Agua Prieta Grant |
Ainsa v.United States, 184 U.S. 639 (1902). |
Opinion by Chief Justice Fuller. Held: A grant, whose measurement was made with great care and the quality repeatedly recited, was a grant by quantity, notwithstanding a general description by natural objects that would cover a much larger tract. |
| 35 | Santa Teresa Grant |
United States v. Pendell, 185 U.S. 189 (1902). |
Opinion by Justice Peckham. Held: A certified copy of an ex parte proceeding before the civil judge of the country in which the land was located in 1853 for the purpose of perpetuating evidence of the issuance of a grant where all of the title papers had been lost or destroyed, coupled with possession since 1790, was sufficient evidence to sustain a confirmation of the grant, notwithstanding the requirement in the Gadsden Treaty that the grant be recorded in the Mexican Archives. |
| 36 | San Rafael de las Zanja Grant |
United States v. Green, 185 U.S. 256 (1902). |
Opinion by Justice White. Held: A grant, initiated by proceedings approved by a Spanish Intendant ad interim in 1822 and the sale completed, paid for; and title issued by the Commissary General in 1825, was valid. |
| 37 | Jose de Leyba Grant |
Sena v. United States, 189 U.S. 233 (1903). |
Opinion by Justice Brown. Held: A grant abandoned for at least nine years prior to the date of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo and for fifty years thereafter is invalid.
|