FORMER GOVERNMENTS — continued. a continued possession thereunder may lay a foundation for a presumption of subsequent confirmation by the Spanish authorities. United States v. Pillerin, 13 How. 9.

126. Although a document purporting to be a return of a Spanish survey, recognized by the colonial authorities as genuine, is to be deemed so, prima facie, it may be shown to be forged and antedated. United States v. King, 3 How. 773.

127. The term titulo in the Spanish language means only the instrument which is evidence of the right, interest, or estate conferred, and is therefore applicable to papers which give a mere right of occupancy as well as to those which convey title in the ordinary acceptance of the term. De Haro v. United States, 5 Wal. 599.

128. The Spanish words meaning in English a complete title," when used in a Spanish grant of land in Louisiana, refer only to the instruments which constitute evidence of title, not to the estate or interest thereby conveyed. Slidell v. Grandjean, 111 U. S. 412.

129. A title to land in Florida obtained from the Indian tribes, and confirmed by the local Spanish authorities before the cession to the United States, held valid. Mitchel v. United States, 9 Pet. 711; United States v. Fernandez, 10 Pet. 303.

130. Where a claimant of land in California shows no grant from the Mexican authorities, and relies on nothing but possession, the possession, however long continued, will not avail, if permitted only on payment of rent to the authorities of the pueblo of the common lands of which the land in question was claimed to be a part. United States v. Chaboya, 2 Black, 593. 131. Long-continued and undisturbed possession of land in California, while that country belonged to Spain or Mexico, under simple permission to occupy from a priest of a mission to which the land originally belonged, or from a local military commander, gives no equity on which a claim is entitled to confirmation under the act of March 3, 1851 (9 Sts. 631), for the ascertainment and settlement of private land claims in California. Serrano v. United States, 5 Wal. 451.

132. A grant under the Mexican colonization laws of 1824 and 1828 is not necessarily defeated by the fact that no approval by the supreme government is shown. [DANIEL and CLIFFORD, JJ., dissenting.] United States v. Sutter, 21 How.

135. A concession of land under authority of the governor-general of Louisiana confirmed. Delassus v. United States, 9 Pet. 117.

136. Where the documentary evidence produced by a claimant of an incomplete title to land in the territory ceded by France in 1803 contains no boundary lines sufficient to sever a definite parcel from the public domain, the concession creates no right of property which can be asserted in a court without an antecedent survey and location. Maguire v. Tyler, 8 Wal. 650.

137. A French grant of land in Louisiana, unaided by a survey, the calls of which are too vague to designate the particular tract, held not to support an ejectment. Denise v. Ruggles, 16 How. 242.

138. Semble that want of segregation of the laud granted by an old French grant of land in Louisiana is cured by possession of a hundred and fifty years. Trenier v. Stewart, 101 U. S. 797.

139. A French settler on land in the northwestern territory in 1783, when Virginia ceded the territory to the United States, had a title, his claim being to a specific tract, against which the statute of limitations might run in favor of an adverse occupant. Langdeau v. Hanes, 21 Wal. 521.

140. Although a Spanish grant of land in Louisiana may have been void, the interest acquired under a previous concession, followed by a survey ordered and recorded, and by possession, was an interest such as could be transferred by mortgage or reached by judicial process. Bryan v. Kennett, 113 U. S. 179.

or

141. And a subsequent release by the United States of whatever title it might have in the premises to the heirs, legal representatives, assignees" of the grantee, operates to perfect the title of those holding under valid judicial proceedings, not the title of the heirs of the grantee. Ib.

142. Made by what Officers.] The power of Mexican territorial governors to grant land, considered. United States v. Peralta, 19 How. 343.

143. Under the Mexican laws relating to the disposition of public lands in the territories, the departmental assembly had by itself no power to grant, but merely power to confirm grants made by the governor. United States v. Vigil, 13 Wal. 449.

144. The submission of the grants to the departmental assembly for its approval was the duty of the governor, not of the grantee, and the governor's neglect would not devest the title. Hornsby v. United States, 10 Wal. 224.

LANDS OF UNITED STATES - GRANTS FROM FORMER GOVERNMENTS — continued. 145. Under the regulations of 1828, a clause in the grant subjecting it to the approval of the departmental assembly did not prevent the title from passing on the execution of the instrument, the authority to make grants being lodged solely in the governor; but the title was defeasible until such approval was had. [CLIFFORD, SWAYNE, and DAVIS, JJ., dissenting.] 1b.

146. The governor, in proceeding, on receipt of a petition for land, to obtain the necessary information as to the qualifications of the petitioner and the character of the land, as required by those regulations, was not bound to make a formal reference to the local magistrate, but might make his own investigation or consult the appropriate municipal authority. Ib

147. The governor and assembly had power to grant only for the purposes of settlement or cultivation; none, for instance, to grant a great quantity of land on condition that the grantee would construct wells for the relief of travellers and factories for the use of the state. United States v. Vigil, 13 Wal. 449.

148. The authority of Mexican officers to grant lands in California is to be deemed to have ended on July 7, 1846, the day on which the conquest of that province is by the government considered to have become complete. United States v. Yorba, 1 Wal. 412; Stearns v. United States, 6 Wal. 589; Hornsby v. United States, 10 Wal. 224.

149. The Mexican governor of California had no power to make a valid grant of the mission of San Gabriel on June 8, 1846. United States v. Workman, 1 Wal. 745.

150. Nor to make a grant of San Luis Rey on May 18, 1846. v. Jones, 1 Wal. 766.

the mission of United States

151. The alcalde was the chief executive officer of the pueblo of San Francisco, and had | authority to make grants of the pueblo lands, subject to the authority of the ayuntamiento, and the still higher authority of the governor and departmental assembly. Merryman v. Bourne, 9 Wal. 592.

152. If a claimant under a Mexican grant produce record evidence thereof, and the only question be as to the authority of the officer to make it, the presumption will be in favor of the authority. United States v. Peralta, 19 How. 343.

153. Where a claim to land in California was founded on a grant purporting to have been authorized by a special order or decree of the president of Mexico, and not under the Mexican colonization laws, it was held that the authority so delegated should have been strictly pursued, and that, as the power was a joint power to the governor and the departmental assembly, and the latter took no part in making the grant, the grant was void. United States v. Osio, 23 How. 273.

LANDS OF UNITED STATES GRANTS FROM FORMER GOVERNMENTS - continued. 154. Where an order of the central Mexican government to the governor of California authorized him to grant the lands of the islands adjacent to the department, in conjunction with the assembly, and a subsequent despatch of the same date required him to reserve such islands as a certain person might select, and grant them to him, it was held that a grant of an island to that person under that order did not require the confirmation of the assembly, and, being regular in all other respects, should be confirmed. United States v. Castillero, 23 How. 464.

155. After the conquest of California, prefects, however appointed or elected, and whatever the power of prefects in that regard under the Mexican government, had no power to grant the common or unappropriated lands of the pueblos within their jurisdiction. Alexander v. Roulet, 13 Wal. 386.

156. An account of the Spanish officers who had power to make grants. United States v. Moore, 12 How. 209.

157. The Spanish governor of East Florida, as the king's deputy, was the sole judge of the merits of an applicant, and of the sufficiency of the consideration of a grant. United States v. Acosta, 1 How. 24.

158. From 1774, he had power to grant lands without any special restriction as to quantity. United States v. Clarke, 8 Pet. 436.

159. The Spanish governor of Louisiana had no power to make a grant of lands in West Florida in August, 1781. United States v. Power, 11 How. 570.

160. A warrant or order of survey of land made by the Spanish authorities at Mobile, in 1806, did not confer a complete legal title. De la Croix v. Chamberlain, 12 Wheat. 599.

161. Under the act of May 23, 1828 (4 Sts. 284), the acts of public officers of Spain in making a grant of land in Florida were presumed to have been performed on proper authority, and to be valid, in the absence of fraud. United States v. Arredondo, 6 Pet. 691.

162. Although, on a grant by a royal Spanish officer of land in Florida, a presumption arose from the grant itself that the officer had authority to make it, the court examined the proceedings on an allegation of defect of authority on their face. United States v. Percheman, 7 Pet. 51.

163. The eighth article of the Spanish treaty of February 22, 1819 (8 Sts. 252), provided for grants made by a governor having a general authority to grant lands; and his act should be taken as not only prima facie valid, but as binding until disavowed by the crown, assuming that the crown had power to disavow it. United States v. Clarke, 8 Pet. 436.

164. The Spanish surveyor-general of Florida had no authority to change the location of a grant nor to split up the surveys, but was bound to make the surveys in reasonable conformity

GRANTS FROM continued.

165. Grants by the military commander of the Spanish post at Nacogdoches, for the purpose of grazing, fitted and used therefor, conferred equitable titles. United States v. Davenport, 15 How. 1; United States v. Patterson, Id. 10.

166. A French grant of land in Louisiana was not confirmed by the Spanish governor by mere quasi judicial action on an inventory of the estate of the deceased grantee, in which the land was mentioned and described. United States v. Ducros, 15 How. 38.

167. From 1774 to 1798, although the power to grant lands in the province of Louisiana was vested in the military governor, the commandants of posts were employed to make the original concessions and orders of survey, and to put applicants into possession, and were the "proper authorities to perform those acts, within the meaning of the act of May 26, 1824 (4 Sts. 52). Delassus v. United States, 9 Pet. 117.

168. O'Reilly's regulations were intended, not to control the power of the governor, but for the government of subordinate officers. Ib.

169. A concession made by an officer authorized to make it is presumed to be conformable to his powers. Ib. See Strother v. Lucas, 12 Pet. 410.

170. After the transfer of the power to grant lands in Louisiana from the military governor to the intendant-general, in 1798, the commandants of posts were sub-delegates ex officio, so that their power to make orders of survey and thus graut incipient rights capable of being perfected into complete titles was not affected by that transfer. Chouteau v. United States, 9 Pet. 137.

171. On petition under the act of May 26, 1824 (4 Sts. 52), for confirmation of title to land in Louisiana, alleged to have been acquired while that territory was under the Spanish government, it need not be proved that the applicant possessed property sufficient to entitle him to the land he solicited, that having been decided by the officer who granted the application. Chouteau v. United States, 9 Pet. 147.

172. How shown and how construed.] In general, to support a title to land in California under a Mexican grant, the written evidence in lawful form must be found in the public records and archives, as that is the best evidence. United States v. Castro, 24 How. 346; United States v. Neleigh, 1 Black, 298; United States v. Vallejo, 1 Black, 541; Romero v. United States, 1 Wal. 721; Pico v. United States, 2 Wal. 279; Peralta v. United States, 3 Wal. 434. See United States v. Gomez, 3 Wal. 752.

173. If that be wanting, there should be secondary evidence that a grant was regularly made and recorded, that the record was lost or destroyed, and that within a reasonable time there was judicial and actual possession. United States

174. The loss of the original Mexican grant need not be proved with absolute certainty, to let in secondary evidence of its existence. United States v. Sutter, 21 How. 170.

175. The absence of record evidence of the grant, and of evidence of the loss of the records in which it existed, was held fatal to a claim to a Mexican graut. United States v, Knight, 1 Black, 227.

176. Proof of the loss or destruction of some few documents on the removal of the archives by the American authorities on the occupation of the country will not be received as a substitute for record evidence, in the absence of proof that the document produced was recorded in some book shown to be lost. United States v. Neleigh, 1 Black, 298.

177. The circumstances herein were held to justify the production of a copy from the court's register, although without the signature of the governor. United States v. Sutter, 21 How. 170.

178. The testimony of Mexican governors and secretaries cannot be received to supply the want of proper public records in proof of grants. United States v. Neleigh, 1 Black, 298.

179. Where a doubt arises upon the meaning of a grant as to the quantity ceded, reference may be had to the juridical possession delivered to the grantee, such proceeding involving an ascertainment of boundaries and having the force of a judicial determination. United States v. Pico, 5 Wal. 536.

180. A claim to a grant of land in California, purporting to have been made by the Mexican governor of that province on May 2, 1846, rejected on the ground that the archive papers were insufficient and not helped by other papers not genuine, but gathered and presented as an afterthought. Roland v. United States, 7 Wal. 743.

181. Where a Mexican grant of land in California stood on the document of concession alone, unsupported by proof of the preliminary steps on the petition, or of delivery of possession, or of the approval of the departmental assembly, the judgment of the court below confirming the claim was reversed and the cause remanded for further evidence and examination, although there was some evidence of actual possession, and the concession was indorsed as recorded in the proper book, there being no proof of record, and the genuineness of the concession being doubtful.. United States v. Teschmaker, 22 How. 392.

182. The same judgment was rendered where the document of concession was supported only by certain papers coming from the possession of the claimant which tended to prove an approval of the grant by the departmental assembly. United States v. Pico, 22 How. 406; United States v. Vallejo, Id. 416.