Opinion of the Court.

only those who hold superior titles, such as will enable them to resist successfully any action of the Government in disposing of the property."

These principles were recognized in More v. Steinbach, 127 U. S. 70, 83, and again in Knight v. United States Land Association, 142 U. S. 161, 187. See also Meader v. Norton, 11 Wall. 442, 457; Adam v. Norris, 103 U. S. 591, 593; Stoneroad v. Stoneroad, 158 U. S. 240; Russell v. Maxwell Land Grant Co., 158 U. S. 253.

The decisions of the Supreme Court of California have been to the same effect.

In Teschemacher v. Thompson, 18 California, 11, 25, 26, the court, after referring to the statute of 1851, said: "As the last act in the series of proceedings, a patent is to issue to the claimant. This instrument is not only the deed of the United States, but it is a solemn record by the Government of its action and judgment with respect to the title of the claimant existing at the date of the cession. By it the sovereign power, which alone could determine the matter, declares that the previous grant was genuine; that the claim under it was valid and entitled to recognition and confirmation by the law of nations and the stipulations of the treaty; and that the grant was located, or might have been located, by the former Government, and is correctly located by the new Government, so as to embrace the premises as they are surveyed and described. Whilst this declaration remains of record, the Government itself cannot question its verity, nor can parties claiming through the Government by title subsequent."

In Chipley v. Farris, 45 California, 527, 538, which involved the title to lands alleged to have been covered by a Mexican grant, and in respect of which there were proceedings under the act of Congress of March 3, 1851, it was contended on one side that the patent was conclusive upon all points in the case, and put an end to all questions of lines and boundaries. On the other side, it was insisted that the confirmation of the claim gave the claimant a perfect title, and that he could not be divested of title to any lands embraced in the decree of confirmation by a patent that excluded a portion of them. The

Opinion of the Court.

Supreme Court of California said: "A patent, issued under the act of 1851, is, as has often been held by this court, the final act in proceedings instituted for the confirmation of the claim of the patentee to land which had been granted by the former Government, and for the segregation of such lands from the public lands of the United States; and it is a record which binds both the Government and the claimant, and cannot be attacked by either party, except by direct proceedings instituted for that purpose. Leese v. Clark, 18 California, 535. While it stands, the claimant, or those deriving title through him, will not be permitted to aver that the claim comprised other or different lands from those mentioned in the patent.

It is contended by the plaintiffs that the survey, which is incorporated into the patent, does not accord with the decree of confirmation, and that they are entitled to rely upon the decree which is also incorporated into the patent for title to lands within the decree, but not within the survey. This position cannot be maintained consistently with the views already expressed as to the nature and effect of the patent. The patent purports to convey the lands described in the survey, and its scope cannot be extended, nor on the other hand can it be limited, by showing that the decree comprised a greater or less area than the survey. Nor can the claimant, after admitting - as he must the conclusive effect of the patent, make out title to lands not conveyed by the patent, by the production of the proceedings which culminated in the patent. The patent, while it remains in force, conclusively determines what lands the claimant was entitled to under his claim and the decree of confirmation. The claimant can neither reform the patent nor show that it is in any respect incorrect, in an action of ejectment." See also Moore v. Wilkinson, 13 California, 478; Cassidy v. Carr, 48 California, 339; Gallagher v. Riley, 49 California, 473, 477; Carey v. Brown, 58 California, 180, 185; People v. San Fran cisco, 75 California, 388; Wright v. Seymour, 69 California, 122. And as said by Mr. Justice Field in Moore v. Wilkinson, 13 California, 488, "the fifteenth section of the act of Congress of 1851 provides that the final decree of confirmation and

Opinion of the Court.

patent shall be conclusive between the United States and the claimants only, and shall not affect the interests of third perIf conclusive between the United States and the claimants, it must be equally so between persons holding under either of those parties."

In our opinion the adjudged cases and the evidence in the cause leave no room to doubt the soundness of the conclusions announced by the Supreme Court of the State, namely: 1. That the lands in controversy are not embraced by the patent issued to the petitioners under the proceedings before the Board of Land Commissioners appointed under the act of 1851; 2. The patent having been accepted by the patentees, and being uncancelled, the plaintiffs in this action, claiming under the patentees, cannot recover lands not embraced by it, even if such lands are embraced by the lines established by the decree of confirmation the conclusive presumption. being that the patent correctly locates the lands covered by the confirmed grant.

It is proper to say that the court decides nothing more in this case than that the plaintiffs are not entitled to recover possession of the specific lands here in controversy. In this view it is unnecessary to decide whether the defendant Banning was entitled to a judgment on his cross complaint, nor whether the lands under the navigable waters of the inner bay of San Pedro, and those here in controversy or any part thereof, passed to the State of California upon its admission into the Union, or after the issuing of the patent of 1858.

Judgment affirmed.

Decisions announced without Opinions.

DECISIONS

ANNOUNCED WITHOUT OPINIONS

DURING THE TIME COVERED BY THIS VOL

UME.

No. 298. TEXAS AND PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY v. GAY. Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Texas. Submitted April 27, 1897. Decided May 10, 1897. Per Curiam. Judgment affirmed with costs on the authority of Railway Company v. Johnson, 151 U. S. 81; Railway Company v. Anderson, 149 U. S. 237; Sayward v. Denny, 158 U. S. 180; Railway Company v. Bloom's Admr., 164 U. S. 636. Mr. John F. Dillon, Mr. Winslow S. Pierce and Mr. D. D. Duncan for plaintiff in error. Mr. W. Hallett Phillips for defendant in error.

No. 573. BOSTON SAFE DEPOSIT AND TRUST COMPANY V. WILKINS. Certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Submitted April 12, 1897. Decided May 10, 1897. Decree affirmed with costs, by a divided court, and cause remanded to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Georgia. Mr. Henry B. Tompkins for Boston Safe Deposit and Trust Company. Mr. H. J. May, Mr. L. II. Spilman, Mr. C. E. Lucky and Mr. Alex. C. King for Wilkins and others.

No. 798. MERRITT V. PRESIDENT AND TRUSTEES OF BOWDOIN COLLEGE. Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of California. Submitted May 10, 1897. Decided May 24, 1897. Per Curiam. Dismissed for the want of jurisdiction on the authority of Colvin v. Jacksonville, 158 U. S. 456; The Bayonne, 159 U. S. 687; Chappell v. United States, 160 U. S. 499, 507 and 508, and cases therein cited. (The Chief Justice did not sit and took no part in the consideration and disposition of this motion.)

Decisions announced without Opinions.

Mr. Thomas H. Hubbard, Mr. E. S. Pillsbury and Mr. Robert Y. Hayne for motion to dismiss.

Lovell opposing.

Mr. Charles H.

No. 804. BLYTHE v. HINCKLEY. Error to the Supreme Court of the State of California. Submitted May 10, 1897. Decided May 24, 1897. Per Curiam. Dismissed for the want of jurisdiction. Mr. W. H. H. Hart, Mr. John H. Boalt, Mr. Thomas B. Bishop, Mr. W. W. Foote, Mr. A. R. Cotton, and Mr. John Garber for motions to dismiss or affirm. Mr. Jefferson Chandler, Mr. E. Burke Holladay and Mr. L. D. Mc Kisick opposing.

Decisions on Petitions for Writs of Certiorari.

No. 795. UNITED STATES V. v. DUDLEY. Second Circuit. Granted May 24, 1897. Mr. Mr. Attorney General and Mr. Solicitor General for petitioner. Mr. C. A. Prouty and Mr. J. P. Tucker opposing.

No. 800. BARROW V. MILLIKEN. Fifth Circuit. Denied May 24, 1897. Mr. Edgar H. Farrar, Mr. Benjamin F. Jonas and Mr. E. B. Kruttschnitt for petitioner.

No. 805. MEXICAN CENTRAL RAILWAY COMPANY v. EVEY. Fifth Circuit. Denied May 24, 1897. Mr. A. T. Britton and Mr. A. B. Browne for petitioner.

No. 817. WILLIS V. EASTERN TRUST AND BANKING COMPANY. Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia. Granted May 24, 1897. Mr. William A. Maury, Mr. Calderon Carlisle and Mr. William G. Johnson for petitioners.

No. 813.

HIYER V. RICHMOND TRACTION COMPANY. Fourth Circuit. Granted May 24, 1897. Mr. Robert Stiles and Mr. Addison L. Holladay for petitioner.