Show In the Siiureme Court WASHINGTON April LTlio supreme court today rendered a decision in case 221 Lizzie Buxton and Anna 1 Voohes plan tiffs in error vs Hattie L Travcrs et al in error to the supreme court of California The case of plaintiffs rests upon a con ten Hoi That their father acquired by occup m of unsurveyed lands a United States right of preemption which at his death descended to plaintiffs under the laws of I the tnited States The court holds that the contention isnot well taken Settle mcut upon public lands in advance of pub I li j < a surveys tho court says is all al-l cd to parties who intend when I the surveys are made to apply for their purchase I within a certain time after the surveys and return of the plat to locate to the laud officers the settler has I taken certain steps required by the law he acquires for the first time the right of pre cmption that is a i iiht to purchase it in preference to others Until then he has no estate which he could devise by will or which in case of death would pass to his heirsatlaw It has heretofore beei S held by the court that the occupation occu-pation and improvement of public lands with a view to preemption do not confer a vested right in the lands so occupied The United States enters into no obligation that lands occupied shall never be put up for sale but simply declares that in case they are offered for sale the occupants shall Inutile Inu-tile privilege of purchasing them bafore air others Tho judgment of the lower court against plaintiffs rights is stitbrmed The aginst opinion IS by Judge Field An opinion was also rendered in Xo 1370 Zeigido Bott Her et al plaintiffs in error versus Domingo Doininiguez in error to supreme court of California This is an actioa of ejectment brought against Bottcller and others to re over nos session of Las VirginnesLos AngelesC 111 Dominiguoz title is derived from the grant made bi Mexico in 1S34 but which glut has never been presented for conlirmatioi board of land commissioners to the lald an pointed under the act of Congress of March 3 1S51 t settle private claims in California and no patent for the laud has ever been issued by the United States t t is contended by Batteller that the true 8 public land and open t entry under the general land laws Tie lower ccurt held fat gcnerl Domiuiguczs tue to the land in Mexico was perfect at the time of the acquisition acqui-sition of California by the United States ho was not compelled to submit his gram for confirmation to the board of land commissioners com-missioners and that his failure t do so ilk not forfeit his grant The judgment was therefore given against BotellerJand from that judgment appeal was taken to this court court elaborate opinion by Justice Miller the supreme court holds that the slower court was in error and therefore reverses Cer the judgment of the supreme court of California The court says there is nothing the language of the statute of 1851 creating a board of land commissioners to show that its proceedings were to be limited to settlement of implicit and inchoate in-choate claims and that claims already perfected per-fected under the Mexican law were to be excluded from the jurisdiction of the commission that nowhere in the statute is there a hint of an attempt at any distinction as to the claims to be presented between those which are perfect and those which are imperfect It was not the purpose pur-pose of the statute to settle titles between private citizens making claim to the same prvat The object was to separate and distinguish lands which the United States owned from those which belonged either equitably or legally to parties under a grant from private gnt plate Mexico It was equally important Slain object which the United States had inc passage of it that claims under perfect per-fect grants nom the Mexican government gants established as that imperfect claims should be established or rejected so that the government might b enabled out of all its vast domain to say This is my al property and that Mexican claimants claim it could sa wan had a just caim against say This is mine |