CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO & ANOTHER
v.
SCOTT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
San Francisco sought review of a California Supreme Court decision regarding the city's pueblo land rights under the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo and an 1864 federal act that released all U.S. title to the lands. The U.S. Supreme Court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction, holding that the central question—whether a Mexican alcalde could validly grant pueblo lands after the American conquest—involved general public law and the effect of conquest on local governmental powers under Mexican law, not a federal question.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court.
There is no federal question in this case. The right of San Francisco under the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo to the lands' in dispute as pueblo lands is not denied. Precisely what that right was may not be easy to state. Mr.- Justice Field, speaking for the court, said, in Townsend v. Greely, 5 Wall. 336, “ It was not an indefeasible estate; ownership of the lands in the pueblos could not in strictness be affirmed. It amounted in truth to little more than-a restricted and qualified right to alienate portions of the land-to its inhabitants for building or cultivation, and to use the remainder for commons, for pasture lánds, of as a source of revenue, or for other purposes. This right of disposition and use was, in all particulars, subject to the control of the government of the country.” This definition was accepted as substantially accurate in Grisar v. McDowell, 6 Wall. 363, 372, and Palmer v. Low, 98 U. S. 1, 16.
The act of July 1, 1864, c. 194, sec. 5, 13 Stat. 333, simply released to the city all the right and title of the United States in the lands, Hoadley v. San Francisco, 94 U. S. 4, 5, and thus perfected' the incomplete Mexican title for -the uses and purposes specified. Palmer v. Low, supra. Its effect was to surrender all future control of the United States over the disposition and use of the property by the city.
The only controversy in this case is as to the effect of the alcalde grant of the pueblo title; and the precise question submitted to the Supreme Court of the State for determination was, “ whether, after the conquest . . . and before-the incorporation of the city-of San Francisco, and before the adoption of the constitution of the State of California, a person' exercising the functions of an alcalde of the pueblo of San Francisco . . . could make a valid grant of pueblo lands, as such officers had been before such conquest accustomed to do,” and, if so, what would be the effect of such a grant ? This does not depend on any legislation of Congress, or on the terms of the treaty, but on the effect of the conquest upon the powers of local government in the pueblo under the Mexican laws. - That-is a question of general public law, as to Avhich the decisions of the State Court are not reviewable here. This has been many times decided. Delmas v. Insurance Company, 14 Wall. 661; Tarver v. Keach, 15 Wall. 67; New York Life Insurance Company v. Hendren, 92 U. S. 286; Dugger v. Bocock, 104 U. S. 596; Allen v. McVeigh, 107 U. S. 433.
It follows that we have no jurisdiction, and the writ of' error is
Dismissed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Southern Railway-Carolina Division v. Bennett, 233 U.S. 80 (U.S. 1914)
-
Devine v. Los Angeles, 202 U.S. 313 (U.S. 1906)…d: “ Obviously, the question as to the title or right of plaintiffs in error in the land, and whatever appertained thereto, was one of state law and of general public law, on which the decisiofi of the state court was final. San Francisco v. Scott, 111 U. S. 768; Powder Works v. Davis, 151 U. S. 389. And the question of the existence of percolating water was merely a question off fact. “The patents were in the nature of a quitclaim, and under the act of March 3, 1851, were 'conclusive between the United St…
-
Chicago and Alton Railroad v. Wiggins Ferry Co., 119 U.S. 615 (U.S. 1877)…old v. Rockhold, 92 U. S. 129 ; New York Life Ins. Co. v. Hendren, 98 U. S. 286; United States v. Thompson, 93 U. S. 586; Bank v. Mc Veigh, 98 U. S. 332; Dugger v. Bocock, 104 U. S. 596, 601; Allen v. Mc Veigh, 107 U. S. 433; San Francisco v. Scott, 111 U. S. 768; Grame v. Insurance Co., 112 U. S. 273. It is not enough to give us jurisdiction to say in the pleadings, or elsewhere in the course of the proceedings, that the contract, whatever it might be in Missouri, was beyond the powers of the company under…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Grisar v. McDowell, 6 Wall. 363 (U.S. 1867)
- Hoadley v. San Francisco, 94 U.S. 4 (U.S. 1876)
- Delmas v. Ins. Co., 14 Wall. 661 (U.S. 1871)
- Tarver v. Keach, 15 Wall. 67 (U.S. 1872)
- N.Y. Life Ins. Co. v. Hendren, 92 U.S. 286 (U.S. 1875)
- Dugger v. Bocock, 104 U.S. 596 (U.S. 1881)
- Allen v. McVeigh, 107 U.S. 433 (U.S. 1882)
- Palmer v. Low, 98 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1878)