Botiller v. Dominguez
1889 U.S. LEXIS 1744, 130 U.S. 238, 9 S. Ct. 525 (1889)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Act of Congress of March 3, 1851, required all persons claiming land in California by virtue of any right or title derived from the Spanish or Mexican governments, including those with perfected titles, to present their claims to the Board of Land Commissioners for confirmation. Failure to present such a claim within the statutory period rendered the title invalid and the land part of the public domain of the United States.
Facts:
- The United States acquired California from Mexico under the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848.
- Brigida de Dominguez held a claim to a parcel of land in California derived from a grant made by the Mexican government prior to the treaty.
- Dominguez's title was considered a "perfected" title under the laws of Mexico.
- In 1851, the U.S. Congress passed an act creating a Board of Land Commissioners to ascertain and settle private land claims in California.
- The act required every person claiming land under a Spanish or Mexican grant to present their claim to the board within two years.
- Dominguez never presented her claim to the Board of Land Commissioners for confirmation.
- A subsequent dispute over ownership of the land arose between Dominguez and Botiller, who claimed an interest in the property.
Procedural Posture:
- Brigida de Dominguez initiated an action in a California state trial court against Botiller to establish her title to the land in question.
- The trial court ruled in favor of Dominguez.
- Botiller appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court of California.
- The Supreme Court of California affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that the 1851 Act did not apply to perfected Mexican land grants.
- Botiller, as plaintiff in error, petitioned for and was granted a writ of error from the Supreme Court of the United States.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Act of Congress of March 3, 1851, require claimants of land in California holding perfected titles derived from the Spanish or Mexican governments to present their claims to the Board of Land Commissioners for confirmation?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Miller
Yes. The Act of Congress of March 3, 1851, requires all claims to land in California derived from Spanish or Mexican grants, regardless of whether they are perfected or inchoate, to be presented to the Board of Land Commissioners. The plain language of the statute is comprehensive and admits no exceptions. Section 8 of the Act applies to 'each and every person claiming lands in California by virtue of any right or title derived from the Spanish or Mexican government.' This inclusive language makes no distinction between perfected and imperfect titles. Furthermore, Section 13 explicitly states that all lands for which claims were not presented within the two-year deadline 'shall be deemed, held and considered as part of the public domain of the United States.' The primary purpose of the Act was to distinguish private property from the public domain to allow for the orderly settlement and disposition of federal lands. Excluding perfected titles from this process would have frustrated that purpose, leaving the government unable to determine the extent of its own property. This interpretation is consistent with a long line of precedent, including Fremont v. United States and More v. Steinbach, which established that the 1851 Act was the exclusive means for validating such claims against the United States.
Analysis:
This decision definitively resolved a critical question in California property law by establishing the mandatory and universal application of the 1851 Act to all Spanish and Mexican land grants. It solidified the federal government's authority to impose its own procedures for title confirmation in newly acquired territories, even for titles considered complete under the prior sovereign. The ruling had a profound impact, as it rendered invalid any grant not presented to the commission, thereby transferring vast tracts of land into the U.S. public domain. This precedent effectively closed the door on claims based on unconfirmed grants and provided certainty for land titles derived from the United States.
