Gonzales v. United States (63 U.S. 161)/Separate Campbell

by John Archibald Campbell

United States Supreme Court

63 U.S. 161

Gonzales  v.  United States

Mr. Justice CAMPBELL delivered a separate opinion, in which Mr. Justice NELSON concurred.

The plaintiff was confirmed in his claim to a parcel of land designated as San Antonio, or El Pescadero, in the county of Santa Cruz, by the board of commissioners. The description of the land in their decree is as follows:

'Being the same which has been held and occupied by the present claimant since the year 1833 to the present time, and is bounded as follows: Beginning at the mouth of the Arroyo de Butano, and running along the sea coast, and bordering thereon, to the boundary line of Antonio Buelna, the distance being one league, a little more or less; thence with the line of said Buelna east three-quarters of a league; thence a line southerly parallel with the sea coast until it intersects the Arroyo del Butano, at the distance of three-quarters of a league from the coast; thence along said arroyo and bordering thereon to its mouth, the place of beginning; the same being in extent three-fourths of a square league, a little more or less. For a more particular description, reference being had to the original grant and map contained in the expediente from the archives now in the custody of the United States surveyor general for California, the first of which and a traced copy of the latter are filed in the case.'

The parties appealed to the District Court, and, upon the hearing of the cause, the decree of the commissioners was affirmed, and it was further ordered, that the claim of the said Juan Jose Gonzales is a good and valid claim to the land known by the name of San Antonio, or Pescadero, to the extent and within the boundaries mentioned in the grant and map, the original of the former and copy of the latter being on file in the records of this case. From this decree the plaintiff appealed. The only question presented on the appeal is, whether the grant is to be located according to the natura calls in the grant, or whether the claimant is to be confined to the quantity specified in the 4th condition of the grant. But the decision of this question is reserved in the decree of the District Court, and will properly arise after the location. The failure to direct the precise manner of the location is not erroneous. The result therefore is, that the decree must be affirmed.