THE UNITED STATES, APPELLANTS,
v.
MARIANO G. VALLEJO
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
In this land claim case arising from California's Mexican land grant period, Vallejo sought confirmation of his title to three square leagues known as Ynlupa based on documents purporting to be signed by Mexican officials in 1844-1845, but neither the grant nor approval certificate could be found in Mexican archives and both originated from the claimant's hands. The Supreme Court reversed the Circuit Court's affirmance of the claim, holding that absent official records or archives corroborating the documents' genuineness, the case must be remanded for further evidence of the authenticity of the official signatures and possession.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice NELSON delivered the opinion of the court.
This is an appeal from a decree of the Circuit Court of the United-States for the northern district of California.
The appellee, Vallejo, presented to the board of land commissioners a claim for three square leagues of land, known by the name of' Ynlupa, situate in the county of Sonoma, California, having derived his title from Miguel Alvarado, the original grantee.
The documentary evidence of the title is: 1st. A grant in due form, dated Monterey, 23d November, 1844, purporting to be signed by Mieheltoréna, Governor, and Francisco Arce, secretary, with a memorandum by the secretary: “Note haS' been made of this title in the proper book; ” and 2d. A certi'cate of approval by the Departmental Assembly, bearing dat at the city of Los Angeles, 18th February, 1845, signed by Pio Pico, Governor, and Jose M. Corvarubias, secretary.
Neither the grant nor the certificate of approval has been found among' the Mexican archives, nor the record of them upon any book of records. Both papers came from the hands of the claimant. The genuineness of the title depend» upon proof of the official signatures, and some evidence of possession.
The board rejected the claim; but on appeal to the District Court, and the production of further proof of possession, that court affirmed it.
The case falls within'the views of the court in the United States v.' Teschmaker and others, decided this term.
Decree reversed, and the case remanded, for further evidence.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. Wilson, 1 Black 267 (U.S. 1861)
-
O'Donnell v. United States, 91 F.2d 14 (9th Cir. 1936)…this is not a sufficient showing of possession to satisfy the standards established by the federal decisions is apparent from U. S. v. Teschmaker (1859) 22 How. (63 U.S.) 392, 402 to 404, 16 L.Ed. 353; U. S. v. Vallejo (1859) 22 How. (63 U.S.) 416, 16 L.Ed. 359; Whitney v. U. S. (1897) 167 U.S. 529, 546, 17 S.Ct. 857, 42 L.Ed. 263; Bergere v. U. S. (1897) 168 U.S. 66, 79, 80, 18 S.Ct. 4, 42 L.Ed. 383; U. S. v. Polack (1857) 27 Fed.Cas. 580, 584, 585, No. 16,061; U. S. v. De Haro (1862) 25 Fed.Cas. 805, 807…