Washington, Alexandria, & Georgetown S. P. Co. v. Sickles et al. action of assumpsit, tried upon the general issue, because in no such action can any precise point be made and presented for trial by a jury, and the cases of Outram v. Morewood, 3 East., 346, Vooght v. Winch, 2 B. and Ald., 662, are cited in support of this proposition. And the conclusion would seem to be proper for the attainment of the end, for which authority was allowed to the res judicata as testimony. Experience has disclosed, that for the security of rights, and the preservation of the repose of society, a limit must be imposed upon the faculties for litigation. For this purpose, the presumption has been adopted, that the thing adjudged by a court of competent jurisdiction, under definite conditions, shall be received in evidence as irrefragable truth. This presumption is a guarantee of the future efficacy and binding operation of the judgment. It presupposes that all the constituents of the judgment shall be preserved by the court, which renders it in an authentic and unmistakable form. In the courts upon the continent of Europe, and in the courts of chancery and admiralty in the United States and: Great Britain, where the function of adjudication is performed entire by a tribunal composed of one or more judges, this has been done without much difficulty. The separate functions of the judge and jury, in common-law courts, created a necessity for separating issues of law from issues of fact; and with the increase of commerce and civilization, transactions have become more complicated and numerous, and law and fact have become more closely interwoven, so as to render their separation more embarrassing. The ancient system of pleading, which was conducive to the end of ascertaining the material issue between the parties, and the preservation in a permanent form of the evidence of the adjudication, has been condemned as requiring unnecessary precision, and subjecting parties to over-technical rulès, prolixity, and expense. A system of general pleading has been extensively adopted in this country, which rendered the application of the principle contended for by the plaintiffs impracticable, unless we were prepared to restrict within narrow bounds the authority of the res judicata. It was consequently decided that it was not neces Washington, Alexandria, & Georgetown S. P. Co. v. Sickles et al. sary as between parties and privies that the record should show that the question upon which the right of the plaintiff to recover, or the validity of the defence, depended for it to operate conclusively; but only that the same matter in controversy might have been litigated, and that extrinsic evidence would be admitted to prove that the particular question was material, and was in fact contested, and that it was referred to the decision of the jury. In Young v. Black, 7 Cr., 565, this court admitted in evidence a record of a former suit between the parties, in which judgment was rendered for the defendant, supported by parol proof that the cause of action in the two suits was the same. The court say: "The controversy had passed in rem judicatan; and the identity of the causes of action being once established, the law. would not suffer them again to be drawn into question." The current of American authority runs in the same direction. Wood v. Jackson, 8 Wend., 9; Eastman v. Cooper, 15 Pick., 276; Marsh v. Pico, 4 Rawle, 288; Green. Ev., section 531. In the case before the court, the verdict was rendered upon two special counts, and the general counts in assumpsit, but the verdict in the subsequent stage of the proceedings was applied by the court only to the first count. The record produced by the plaintiff's showed that the first suit was brought apparently upon the same contract as the second, and that the existence and validity of that contract might have been litigated. But the verdict might have been rendered upon the entire declaration, and without special reference to the first count. It was competent to the defendants to show the state of facts that existed at the trial, with a view to ascertain what was the matter decided upon by the verdict of the jury. It may have been that there was no contest in reference to the fairness of the experiment, or to its sufficiency to ascertain the premium to be paid for the use of the machine at the first trial, or it may have been that the plaintiffs abandoned their special counts and recovered their verdict upon the general counts.. The judgment rendered in that suit, while it remains in force, and for the purpose of maintaining its validity, is conclusive of all the Washington, Alexandria, & Georgetown S. P. Co. v. Sickles et al. facts properly pleaded by the plaintiffs. But when it is pre sented as testimony in another suit, the inquiry is competent whether the same issue has been tried and settled by it. Merriam v. Whittemore, 5 Gray, 316; Hughes v. Alexander, 5 Duer R., 488. The defendants in error contend the jury, by their verdict, necessarily found the statements of fact in all the counts of the declaration to be true; and the effect of a verdict and judgment on the whole declaration and a verdict and judgment on the first count is precisely the same, in producing an estoppel, as respects the matters contained in that special count. But this is not true. If the verdict had been rendered on the special count in exclusion of the others, the record itself would have shown that the existence and validity of the contract were in question. There would have been no ground for the inquiry whether any other issue was presented to the jury. But where a number of issues are presented, the find ing on any one of which will warrant the verdict and judg ment, it is competent to show that the finding was upon one rather than on another of these different issues. Henderson v. Kenner, 1 Rich. R., 474; Sawyer v. Woodbury, 7 Gray, 499. Nor do we think that the subsequent application of the verdict to a single count by the court precludes this inquiry. The authority of the courts to make the application, and the circumstances under which it is allowable, was considered by this court in Matheson v. Grant, 2 How., 263. It is done for the purpose of preventing the consequences of a misjoinder of counts in a declaration, or of the union of insufficient counts. with others, so as to allow a valid judgment on the verdict. 'It had no reference to the use that might be made of the proceedings as testimony in another proceeding. In Maryland, the power to amend the record in this form was conferred by the act of 1809. 3 Maxey, Laws, 484. The case is not embraced in the earlier act of 1785 upon this subject. 3 H. and J., 9; Ibid, 91. It is the opinion of the court, that the Circuit Court erred in holding that the plaintiffs in error were estopped by the proceedings in the former suit, for any inquiry in respect to the matters in issue, and actually tried in that cause; and United States v. Castro et al. its judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded for further proceedings, in conformity with this opinion. THE UNITED STATES, APPELLANTs, v. Jose CastrO AND OTHERS As a general rule, in order to support a title to land in California under a Mexican grant, the written evidence of the grant in the forms required by the Mexican law must be found in the public archives and records, where they were required by law and regulations to be deposited and recorded. In order to support a title by secondary evidence, the claimant must show that these title papers had been deposited and recorded in the proper office; that the records and papers of that office, or some of them, had been lost or destroyed; and also, that he entered into the possession of the premises and exercised authority as owner within a reasonable time after the date of the grant. The possession is an essential part of the secondary evidence of title. Parol proof of a grant produced from a private receptacle, without proof that it had been deposited and recorded in the proper office and the loss and destruction of papers in that office, is not sufficient to support a title, even if possession be proved by the oral testimony of witnesses. THIS was an appeal from the District Court of the United States for the northern district of California. The title of Castro is set forth in the opinion of the court. It was argued by Mr. Stanton (Attorney General) for the United States, and Mr. Edward Swann for the appellees. Mr. Chief Justice TANEY delivered the opinion of the court. The appellees claim title to eleven leagues of land in California under a Mexican grant. In March, 1853, they filed a petition before the board of land commissioners, stating that the land in question was, on the 4th of April, 1846, granted by Pio Pico, then Governor of California, to Jose Castro, one of the appellees, under whom the others claim as purchasers. The petition states that the land was occupied and improved by the grantee soon after the date of the grant.. United States v. Castro et al. It appears that the paper purporting to be the original grant was deposited in the Government archives of the United States, on the 8th of June, 1849, more than three years after its date, and two years after the cession of the territory. It was deposited not by Castro, but by Bernard McKenzie, whose representatives claim a portion of the land under a conveyance from Castro; and the deed to him bears date on the same day-that is, June 8, 1849. The following is the translation of the grant as it appears in the record: Pio Pico, Constitutional Governor of the Department of the Californias. [SEAL.] Whereas the lieutenant colonel of cavalry, Don Jose Castro, Mexican citizen, has petitioned, for the benefit of himself and his family, for a tract of land, for pasturing cattle, on the bank of the river San Joaquin, consisting of eleven leagues, whose measurement is to be commenced from the edge of the Snowy mountains, following down stream-having previously made the necessary investigations, I have, by a decree of this day, granted to the said Señor the eleven sitios he prays for, declaring to him the ownership thereof by these present letters, in conformity with the law of August 18, 1824, and the regulations of 21st November, 1828, in conformity with the powers with which I find myself invested by the Supreme Government, in the name of the Mexican nation, under reservation of the approval of the Departmental Assembly, and under the following conditions: 1st. He may fence it, without injury to the cross-roads, highways, and rights of way. He may enjoy it freely and exclusively, directing it to the best cultivation or use which may be to his convenience. 2d. He shall request the judge of that district to give him the juridical possession, by virtue of these patents, who shall mark out the boundaries with the respective landmarks, plaeing, in addition to them, some fruit trees, or others of known utility. 3d. The land, of which donation is made, consists expressly |