Off.Rep. 127 U. B. 200 201-203 203-205 206-208 208-210 210 210-212 " Title. Peoria & P. U. R. Co. v. Chicago, 205 Missouri Pacific R. Co. v. Mackey 107 363 Herrman . Arthur's Exrs. " 212-213 United States v. Broadhead 213-214 Jones' Admr. v. Craig 214-216 216 De Saussure v. Gaillard 125 376 St. Paul Plough Works . Star Here Off. Rep. 127 U. 8. 354 Mosler Safe & Lock Co. v. Mosler 182 110 355-358 109 366-969 109 370 110 147 370-372 217-220 126 127 376-378 252 226-229 130 181 387-389 Belden Min. Co. Mosher v. St. Louis, 1. M. & S. 246 113 R. Co. 249 United States, ex rel. Angarica, v. Bayard 159 405 252-255 160 406 246 Bayard v. United States, ex rel. 44 116 396-397 Holland v. Shipley 116 399 Hosford v. Germania Fire Ins. Co. 196 117 402 44 197 198 404 Hosford v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co. 198 118 402-404 199 180 162 407-408 ་་ 181 261 Cornell v. Weidner 265 State of Wisconsin v. Pelican Ins. 233 245 428 United States. McLaughlin 218 300 Colton v. Colton 216 142 437-440 143 440-443 144 443-446 219 145 446-449 146 449-452 ་་ 322 Cameron v. Hodges 132 452-455 44 826 Culbertson v. Witbeck Co. 888 United States v. Beebe 125 c. Willis 172 348 Noyes o. Mautle 849-351 [70] THE DECISIONS OF THE Supreme Court of the United States, AT OCTOBER TERM, 1887. [Authenticated copy of opinion record strictly followed, except as to such reference words and Submitted Feb. 9, 1888. Decided April 16, 1888. APPEAL from a decree of the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Cal Statement by Mr. Justice Field: 1. The Act of Congress of March 3, 1851, "to ascer- verse claims of the defendants below, appellants (a) That this provision requiring the presen-citizens of the State of California. (b) That the patent of the United States, issued 3. The authority and jurisdiction of Mexican of- ment. 4. The doctrine that the laws of a conquered or ceded country, except so far as affected by the political institutions of the new government, remain in force, after conquest or cession, until changed by it, does not apply to laws authorizing the alienation of any portions of the public domain, or to officers charged under the former government with that power. No proceedings affecting the rights of the new government over public property could be *Head notes by Mr. Justice FIELD. In their complaint the plaintiffs allege that they are the In their answer the defendants disclaim all 72] grantors have been since 1843, the owners | ants, Davidson and others, who had acquired The answer further alleges that the grant was adjudged to be valid, and confirmed, under the Act of Congress of March 3, 1851, "to ascertain and settle the private land claims in the State of California," 9 Stat. at L. 631; and that the defendant A. P. More, on the 4th of March, 1858, succeeded by proper conveyances to all the interests of the grantee in the premises, and still remains the owner thereof, except as to a portion not in dispute here, which he has alienated, and as to portions which are described as belonging to the other defendants, all of whom assert title to the parcels held by them under conveyances from him. A replication being filed, proofs were taken, from which it appears that the plaintiffs claimed under a patent of the United States, issued to one Manuel Antonio Rodrigues de Poli, bearing date on the 24th of August, 1874. It is conceded that whatever title was acquired by Poli under the patent had passed by proper mesne conveyances to them. The patent recites the proceedings taken by Poli before the land commissioners under the Act of March 3, 1851; the filing of his petition in March, 1852, asking for the confirmation of his title to a tract of land known as the Mission of San Buenaventura, his claim being founded upon a sale made on the 8th of June, 1846, by the then Governor of the Department of California; the decree of confirmation rendered by the board of commissioners in May, 1855; the affirmation of said decree by the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of California, in April, 1861, to the extent of eleven square leagues, and by the Supreme Court of the United States, as shown by its mandate issued in December, 1868; and the subsequent depositing in the General Land Office of a plat of the survey of the claim confirmed, authenticated by the signature of the Surveyor-General of the United States for California, the descriptive notes and plat of the survey being set forth in full. The land of which the plaintiffs claim to be the owners is embraced in this patent, and upon its efficacy in transferring the title they rely. The defendants, as stated in their answer, claim under a grant made by Governor Alvarado to Manuel Jimeno on the 28th of April, 1840, which was confirmed under the Act of Congress of March 3, 1851, to ascertain and settle private land claims in California. It appeared in evidence-a fact not averred in the answer-that the claim thus confirmed was subsequently surveyed as required by that Act, and on the 22d of April, 1872, a patent of the United States therefor was issued to the claim The patent to Davidson and others recites the various proceedings taken by them for the confirmation of the claim to the land covered by the grant to Manuel Jimeno, issued by Governor Alvarado on the 28th of April, 1840, and approved in a subsequent instrument by Governor Micheltorena on the 1st of April, 1843, which two instruments are described as separate grants; the confirmation of the claim by the board of land commissioners on the 22d of May, 1855; and that, an appeal having been taken to the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of California, the Attorney-General of the United States gave notice that it was not the intention of the United States to prosecute it, and thereupon, at its December Term, 1857, it was dismissed by the court The patent also recites the subsequent proceedings taken for the location and survey of the claim, by which it appears that two surveys were made, both of which were brought before the District Court of the United States under the Act of 1860, and that the one made under instructions of the United States Surveyor-General in December, 1860, and approved by him in February, 1861, was adopted by the court "as the correct and true location of the lands confirmed." The descriptive notes of the survey approved are set forth in the patent, with a plat of the lands. This patent does not embrace the premises to which adverse claims are asserted by the defendants. Their contention is that the grant, followed by the judicial possession given by the alcalde of the vicinity in 1847, vested in the grantee a perfect title to the lands within such judicial possession, which does embrace these lands; and that their right to such lands is not lost by reason of the fact that they are not included in the subsequent survey of the claim under the Act of 1851, and the patent of the United States. The court below held against their contention; and adjudged that the plaintiffs were owners in fee of the described premises, and that the adverse claims of the defendants to an estate or interest therein were unfounded in law or equity; and gave a decree, as prayed, for the plaintiffs. From this decree the defendants have appealed to this court. Messrs. George Flournoy and John B. Mhoon, for appellants: In the Act of 1851 the words "third persons" are those whose title accrued before the duty of the United States Government and its rights under the treaty attached. Teschemacher v. Thompson, 18 Cal. 27; Beard v. Federy, 70 U. S. 3 Wall. 493 (18: 93); Meader v. Norton, 78 U. S. 11 Wall. 457 (20: 187). It also appears from the face of the patent that it issued on a sale of mission lands made by Pico June 8, 1846; and no authority is shown in Pico to sell; and this court will take notice that said sale was void. U. S. v. Workman, 68 U. S. 1 Wall. 745 (17: 705); U. S. v. Jones, Id. 766 (17: 712). It also appears from the face of the patent [74] |