United States v. Ortiz

delivered the opinion of the court.

Did the court below err in confirming an alleged Mexican land grant, is the inquiry which arises on this record.

The asserted grant is designated as the “ Sierra Mosca,” and embraces many thousand acres of land situated in the county of Santa Fe, New Mexico. The official proceedings had in relation to the grant prior to the commencement of this suit were as follows : In 1872 a petition was filed before the surveyor general of New Mexico, •asking the confirmation of the grant in the name of “ the heirs and those holding under them of Juan Luis Ortiz, deceased.” No other or fuller description of the persons asserting the right appeared in the proceedings. The surveyor general, after hearing, forwarded his recommendation that the grant be confirmed, to the Commissioner of the General Land Office in October, 1873, and the papers were in the same year submitted by the Secretary' of the Interior to Congress. The proceedings before the surveyor general and the resulting official action, as above stated, were by virtue of the act of Congress of July 22, 1854, c. 103, 10 Stat. 308 . No action having been taken by Congress,, in December, 1876, certain persons alleging themselves to be part owners of a claimed Spanish grant of land, which it was averred conflicted with the one in question, petitioned the then surveyor general of New Mexico to hear additional testimony as to the reality of the grant which had been recommended for confirmation, on the ground that the testimony when heard would establish that the grant had been erroneously recommended for confirmation, because, among other reasons stated, it was a forgery. Whilst intimating a doubt as to his power to review the action of his predecessor in office, the surveyor general yet ordered the inquiry to be made, and, after some lapse of time on due notice, testimony was taken. In consequence of the notice given, the attorney for the petitioners, on the original application to confirm, appeared and eross examined the witnesses. Subsequently acting upon such evidence, the then incumbent of the surveyor general’s office transmitted the proceedings to the Commissioner of the General Land Office with

No action having been taken by Congress upon either the original or supplementary report) the present suit was commenced, in the Court of Private Land Claims, .to obtain the confirmation of the grant. The petition by which the cause was initiated was filed in the name of Luis Maria Ortiz and Tomaz- Ortiz, and averred that the alleged Sierra Mosca grant had been, made on June 4, 1846, by Manuel Armijo, the then governor of the Térritory of New Mexico, to Juan Luis Ortiz, and that the grantee hacl on June 8,1846, been placed in legal possession of the granted land by Jose Dolores Trujillo, a justice of the peace, according to the laws and customs then in force in the Eepublic of Mexico.' It was averred that “ the original papers relating to this said grant of land are now on •file in the office of the surveyor general of the Territory of New Mexico, known in that office as private land claim No. 75, for the Sierra Mosca tract, and are not in the control of the plaintiffs, so that they can file them herewith.” A copy, howevér, Avith a translation of the papers thus referred to, was annexed to the petition. The petitioners asserted their right under the grant as follows: “ The plaintiffs are the owners, in fee in and to the said land grant by inheritance from their father, Gaspar Ortiz, who acquired his title thereto, as they are informed and believe, by inheritance from his father, and their grandfather, Juan Luis Ortiz, the original grantee, and by purchase from the other heirs of the same.” No enumeration of the other heirs and no more precise specification of the date and character of the alleged purchase was contained in the petition.

The petition Avas generally traversed, and subsequently an answer-was filed, specifically averring that the alleged granting papers were forgeries, and denying that delivery of possession had ever been made by a justice of the peace, as stated in the petition. After trial upon these issues, the grant was confirmed, Murray, J., dissenting.

Before analyzing the evidence in order to develop and Weigh the proof tending to show the existence of-the grant, it will sub-serve clearness of statement, at the outset, to determine upon whom is cast the burden of showing the existence of the grant, and in a general way to consider briefly the quantum of proof required for that purpose. By-the first subdivision of section 13 of the act of March-3, 1891, c. 539, 26 Stat. 854 , constituting' the Court of Private Land Claims, that court and this court are commanded not to allow a claim “that shall not appear to be upon a title lawfully and regularly derived from the Government of Spain or Mexico,” etc. The statute authorizes no presumption in favor of the genuineness of a title from the mere, fact that the claimant for confirmation presents a paper which is asserted to be' a grant froih a Mexican official. The command of the statute' is not that the United States, when an alleged Mexican title is presented for confirmation, shall be put to the burden of showing that the title in question is not genuine, but that the evidence presented in favor of the asserted

It is preliminarily necessary to dispose of certain exceptions taken to the admissibility of evidence, and which are pressed on our attention.

1. The. petitioners in opening their case offered in evidence the original proceedings before the surveyor general, including the testimony of the witnesses then examined, after having made the prerequisite proof of death of such witnesses in accordance with the requirements of section 5 in the act of 1891. 26 Stat. 854 . Subsequently, the defendant, in proving its case, offered the supplementary proceedings which had been had before the surveyor general (including the testimony of the witnesses taken in that proceeding — proper foundation. also having been laid for the introduction of such testimony), the finding of the surveyor general made in the proceedings, and the forwarding of the whole to the Commissioner of the General Land Office, and the submissions made of all the matters in question by the Secretary of the Interior to Congress. All this was objected to on the ground that the power of the surveyor general was exhausted by the original investigation and report, and that therefore a succeeding incumbent of the office was without legal authority to have further.considered the grant or to have taken any additional testimony as to its genuineness or validity.

But the function of the surveyor general, under the act of 1854, 10 Stat. 308 , was merely advisory, and, until action by Congress had supervened, it was not only the right, but the duty of that official, on proper suggestion being made to him, to hear additional evidence and transmit it for the consideration of Congress, in a claim pending for confirmation.* The act of the surveyor general in making the supplementary investigation was certainly either directly or impliedly authorized or ratified by his official superiors, since the knowledge of

2. William Tipton was called as a witness for the government. The witness, after stating that he was appointed by the Department of Justice to assist in preparing the defence of cases coming before the Court of Private Land Claims, proceeded to say that for a long period of time, covering about sixteen years, he had been previously employed in the office of the surveyor general of New Mexico; that in such employ as clerk, copyist; translator and custodian of the archives, he had constant official occasion to examine, translate and consider the Spanish and Mexican archives extant in the office; that, in consequence of these, facts, he was entirely familiar with the signatures of Governor Armijo and Secretary Yigil, the signatures of whom purported to be affixed to the grant relied upon; that his knowledge on the subject had been derived from-examining not less than seventy-five or eighty signatures of Governor Armijo, and not less than one hundred and twenty signatures of Secretary Yigil, found in the. archives, which were 'either attached to . grants, to the journals'of the territorial deputation .and departmental assembly, or to other official documents. Besides the familiarity of the witness with the signatures in controversy, he was examined as to his capacity as a general handwriting expert, the whole as a basis for eliciting from him his opinion as to the genuineness of the signatures referred to. Objection was made to allowing the witness to testify on this subject, because it was contended the proof did not lay an adequate foundation therefor, and the overruling of this objection was excepted to.

“ It is settled everywhere, that if a person has seen another write his name but once he can testify, and that he is equally .competent, if he has personally communicated with;him by letter, although he has never .seen him write at all. But is the witness incompetent unless he has obtained his knowledge in. one or the other of these modes ? Certainly not, for in the varied affairs of life there are many modes in which one person may become acquainted with the handwriting of another, besides having seen him write or corresponded with him. There is no good reason for excluding any of these modes of getting information, and if the court on the. preliminary examination of the witness can see that he has that degree of knowledge of the party’s handwriting which will enable him to judge of its genuineness, he.should be permitted to give to the jury his opinion on the subject.”

Referring to the testimony of the witnesses showing knowledge derived from the connection with the official archives which were undoubtedly genuine, the court added:

“ The three witnesses told enough to satisfy any reasonable mind that they were better able to judge of the signature of

The witnesses who testified before the surveyor general in 1872 were as follows: Antonio Sena, who was for some time ]irior to December, 1845, prefect of the department in which the land in question was situated and who ceased to hold that office about the ifionth stated, and after an interregnum again held the office after the end of March, 1846; Ramon Sena y Rivera, who in 1846 was an employee in the office of the military commandancy of New Mexico, under the. official direction of Donaciano Yigil, military secretary of Governor Armijo in June, 1846; and prior thereto; Pablo Dominguez, who was also employed as clerk in the same office with Ramon Sena y Rivera, and Joab Houghton, Esq.; an attorney residing at Santa Fe, who had been United States vice consul, chief justice and associate justice of the Supreme Court of the Territory, and register of the' United States land office. Of these witnesses, the two first (the Senas) testified

The defence offered the proceedings before the surveyor general on the supplementary hearing, in 18781, including the testimony then taken of witnesses since deceased, and then offered other proof, oral and documentary, tending to make out the defence. The only evidence directly relating to the genuineness of the signatures was that of Donaciano Yigil and William Tipton, the signatures of Armijo and Yigil introduced for the purposes of comparison, and the enlarged photographs heretofore referred- to. The question then is, Did the evidence offered by the petitioners make out a case, and if so, did the defence-rebut the proof, if any, which arose from the evidence upon which the claimants rested?

Without reference to the testimony of the witnesses on either side, a comparison of the signatures of Governor Armijo and Secretary Yigil, as found on the alleged grant, with the signatures on the documents offered for the purposes of comparison, engenders, in our minds, a very strong conviction against the genuineness of the grant relied upon. And this conclusion is not at all shaken by a comparison of the signatures to the grant with those which were introduced, by the petitioners in rebuttal, also for the purposes of comparison. Without elaborating the reasons by which the conviction of want of genuineness is.suggested., by the comparison, it suffices to say that the entire characteristics of the signatures to the grant present such saliently suspicious features, when the comparison is made, as to leave it impossible for the mind to resist if not the absolute conviction, in any event the grave doubt which irresistibly arises. It is worthy of being noted that the surveyor general before whom the first proceedings were had considered that the mere inspection of the signatures to the

I doubted at first the genuineness of the papers as showing the grant and possession to have been given as set forth; but the testimony brought before me, especially of the two last witnesses, who, beyond all question, are highly respectable men, has set my mind at rest on that point.”

By the application of the rule which we have at the outset referred to, casting upon the claimant the burden of sustaining the validity of an asserted grant, we are compelled to refuse to affirm the judgment of confirmation, unless the testimony offered for the claimants removes the doubt in question.

Now, the testimony as to the grant as we have seen was twofold in its nature. First, Joab Houghton and Pablo Dominguez, who, from a knowledge of the handwriting of the officials, testified that in their opinion the signatures on the grant were genuine, and that of the two Senas who swore that they had personally witnessed the execution of the grant, and therefore gave direct testimony to the genuineness of the signatures. Let us consider whether these two classes of evidence dispel, if not the conviction, at least the grave doubt which has arisen, as above stated.

The testimony of Mr. Houghton, whose sincerity we do not doubt, embodied but his opinion of the genuineness of the signature. That the appearance, however, of the signatures was, to his mind — as it was to that of the surveyor general — suggestive of suspicion, is, we think, manifest from his testimony. Thus, on being shown the alleged decree or grant, and on being asked by counsel for claimants whether the signatures of Armijo and Yigil were genuine or not, the witness said: “ I recognize Armijo’s signature as being genuine on this document, as I do that of Juan B. Yigil, though signed somewhat differently from his usual way.” Being interrogated by the surveyor general, and after stating that he did not know that Mexican officials used steel pens at Santa Fe in 1846, the witness testified as follows:

Q. Was Governor Armijo in the habit of becoming intoxicated ?

“A. I think not. I have seen him often, but never saw him intoxicated.

“ Q. Have you ever seen him in a condition of excitement or nervousness, such as would be likely to affect his handwriting if using a kind of pen he was unfamiliar with?

“A. Yes; I have seen him frequently in such a condition, particularly at the time of the battles in Mexico in 1846, and of the approach here of the American troops during the summer of 1846.”

The testimony of Dominguez also but expressed his opinion. The probative force of the opinion of this witness as to the signatures in question is greatly weakened, however, by his statements on other subjects, such as the possession under the grant &nd the official capacity of Trujillo as justice of the peace, which, as will be hereafter seen, are entirely irreconcilable with the facts, which if not conclusively established, are in any event sustained by a preponderance of proof.

In conflict with the opinion of Houghton and Dominguez is that expressed by Donaciano Yigil in his testimony on behalf of the Government. He, as has been stated, was military secretary of Governor Armijo at the time the grant was alleged to have been made, and Dominguez was a clerk in Yigil’s office. With respect to the signatures upon the decree, purporting to have been made by Armijo, the witness said that he had been intimate with Governor Armijo, and had seen him write, and was well acquainted with his handwriting, and, while unwilling to swear positively that the signature “ Armijo ” on the decree was not genuine, because the witness had not actually seen the name written, the witness swore that Governor Armijo always wrote his name like the signature upon a document exhibited by the witness, which he had seen Armijo write, and further stated that he (the witness) had never seen a genuine signature of Governor Armijo like that on the decree of grant, and that, in his-judgment, “the signatures is not the same Armijo was accustomed to write.”

The testimony of this witness conveys an impression of con

The testimony of Vigil is fortified by that of Tipton, who, in lucid and cogent reasoning, supports the opinion which he unequivocally expressed, that the signatures of both Armijo and Vigil y Alarid were not genuine. The proof on this branch of the case, in the best view which may be taken of it for the petitioners, comes then to this: The genuineness of the signatures to the grant as a matter of opinion is supported by two witnesses, the testimony of one of whom at once suggests the doubt which Arises on the face of the paper and the statements of the other one of whom is weakened by his' declarations on other subjects which, as will be hereafter seen, have been substantially overthrown. On the other hand, the proof of want of genuineness as a matter of opinion is sustained by two witnesses, one of whom (Vigil) based his opinion from an intimate official and personal relation with Governor A.rmijo which existed at the time the alleged grant was made and prior thereto, and the other of whom, Tipton, by a long official relation with documents containing the signatures of Governor Armijo and Secretary Vigil, had apt and valuable means of forming a correct and reliable opinion, and whose testimony is so clear and: so intelligent as to carry great weight with it-. This state'of the proof certainly, instead of removing the doubt suggested by the inspection and comparison, greatly confirms it.

What, then, is. the effect of thé testimony of. the-two witnesses (the Senas) who in the first proceeding before the surveyor general testified to their personal knowledge of the • signing of the grant ?

Antonio Sena, after stating that he was prefect in June, 1846, of the, first district of New Mexico, on being asked whether a grant had been made, and, if he replied yes, .to say by whom and to whom, testified as follows:

“ There was a grant made for this property in June, 1846, by Governor Armijo to Juan Luis Ortiz; and the decree now here is the original one, signed by Governor Armijo, in my presence, on the 4th day of June, 1846. I now mean the paper in this case marked ‘Sierra Mosca grant — original.’ In the month of June, 1846, there was no stamped government paper here, and we had to use common paper. ”

Ramon Sena testified to an intimate acquaintance with the governor and secretary, and on being asked to state whether the signatures to the decree were genuine and whether Juan Luis Ortiz was placed in possession, answered:

“I have examined' the signatures of Armijo and Vigil y. Alarid, upon the document mentioned, and am satisfied that they are both genuine. In the year 1846 — I think in the month of June — I was requested by Juan Luis Ortiz to go with him to present to Governor Armijo a petition for. land, and the petition of said Ortiz shown me on said document A is the petition, and bqars the genuine signature of said Ortiz. Governor Armijo directed a clerk (I don’t remember who) to write the decree, the same on the margin of the document shown me as document A, which decree he then and there signed, as did also ■ Señor Vigil y Alarid; the governor then handed the document to Ortiz, who requested me to proceed with him to the alcalde at Pojoaque, to be by him placed in possession of the land, and who-did place Ortiz in possession, executing the act in my presence, and the record of that act borne by said document A is the act of possession I refer to, and the signature of Jose Dolores Trujillo, which it bears, is his genuine signature. . . . The petition- of Ortiz to the governor was presented to him in duplicate, and when he had. acted upon them he handed one -of the documents to .Ortiz and the other he handed to Señor Vigil y Alarid, to be placed among the archives.”

It is worthy of remark that it was not showrn when, if dead, the attesting witnesses to the act of possession had died, and they were not called upon to testify before the surveyor general or at the trial below — a circumstance which necessarily greatly detracts from the weight of the testimony of Ramon Sena.

In addition to the peculiarities in the téstimony of the witnesses, to which attention has been called, there is a conflict between their statements which' the record leaves wholly unexplained. Thus, Antonio Sena explicitly says that but one paper was signed by Governor Armijo, and that the decree shown him was the original grant, and he makes no reference to any duplicate original petition being presented to the governor, whilst Ramon Sena affirms that duplicate originals of the certificate were made and presented to the governor, and that he acted upon both.

Despite the inconsistencies in and the improbabilities «suggested by the testimony of the Senas above stated, let it be conceded, arguendo, that their statements of personal knowledge of the execution of the grant, standing alone, would be sufficient to overthrow the doubt engendered by the appearance of the signatures to the grant.and by the other testimony on the subject, still such admission cannot be here controlling because of the fact that the testimony of the Senas is shown to have been incorrect in other particulars

A direct issue was made in the pleadings in this case as to the - official existence of the person by whom the act of juridical possession purported to have been executed. The petition presented for confirmation to the surveyor general in 1812 alleged on this subject as follows:

“The said Juan £uis Ortiz was placed in the legal possession of said grant by Jose Dolores, Trujillo, a justice of the peace, according to the laws and customs then in force in said republic, governing the making,, gran ting and placing persons or grantees in possession of lands granted to them.”

In the asserted granting papers Trujillo specifically describes himself as “justice of the peace at said place,” (Pojoaque,) and grants the juridical possession in his capacity as. such officer. On the subject of this official, Antonio Sena, on being shown the act of juridical possession, testified as follows:

“ Q. Who was, if you can state, the justice of the peace at Pojoaque at that time?

“A. It was Jose Dolores Trujillo.

“Q. Do you know the signature of Jose Dolores Trujillo? If so, please examine the signature on the document marked ‘ Sierra Mosca grant — original,’ purporting to be his, and state whether it is genuine.

“A. I know the signature, and have examined the one referred to; and it is his genuine signature. I, as prefect, had authority to appoint the justices of the peace in my district, and 1 appointed him for the precinct or demarcation of Pojoaque.”

By necessary implication in the passage already quoted from the testimony of Ramon Sena, he also affirms .the official character óf Trujillo as an alcalde or justice of-the peace.

By the Mexican law in force at the time of the making of the alleged grant a justice of the peace exercised his authority over a designated area known as a demarcation. Contemplating the contingency of the absence or inability from other cause of such an appointed official to act, there was an official known

It is unnecessary to consider the difference, if any, between the authority of these officials, as the question is not what was the power of Trujillo, as an officer, but whether the proof shows that he was an official, or at all events whether it does not give rise to such serious doubt, on the subject, as to cause us to be unable to sustain the alleged delivery of juridical possession.

. It is clearly proven that in 1846, at the time the alleged granting papers purport to have been executed and long prior thereto, there was no justice of the peace for the-demarcation of Pojoaque,. as there was no such demarcation. At that time Pojoaque was a small town within the demarcation of San Ildefonso, that demarcation being subdivided into four larrios, as follows: El Pancho, Cuyamungue, Jacona and Pojoaque.

Now, the proof is that in 1845, and also in the year when the grant was alleged to have been made (1846), the justice of the peace of the demarcation of San Ildefonso was Jesus Maria Serrano. This fact is established by official- documents in the record and is conceded by the defendants in error. It is also shown by official documents, and is not denied, that in 1845 the substitute of Serrano for the demarcation of San Ildefonso was Teodoro Gonzales. Whilst there is no official record of the reappointment of Gonzales as juez de paz suplente for the demarcation for the year 1846, Gonzales — who was examined before the surveyor general in 1878 — testified positively to that fact, and said that in 1846 he and he alone was such officer. Another witness also, Jesus Maria Ortiz y Baca, who was examined before the surveyor general at the same time, but who again testified at the trial, confirmed this statement of-. Gonzales. The uncontradicted statements of these witnesses were corroborated by those of other witnesses living in the vicinage of Pojoaque, who said that they knew Serrano to have been justice of the peace, and Gonzales to have been his substitute in June, 1846, and that

It is impossible to deduce any reasonable conclusion favorable to the contention that Trujillo was a juez de paz suplente in 1846 upon the assumption that- lapse of time had led these witnesses to confound one year with another, since the testimony shows that both in 1845 and# subsequently in 1846 no person of the name of Trujillo held that office.

What is the state of the proof as to the juez de barrio of Pojoaque in 1846, when the alleged grant was made?

Those officials, it would seem, were recommended for appointment by the justice of the peace of the demarcation, through the prefect of the district, to the governor of the department for confirmation, their commissions- going to them through. the justice of the demarcation. It is shown by official evidence — which is undenied — that in 1845 the jueces de barrios for the four precincts within the demarcation of San Ildefonso were as follows:

Át El Eancho, Don Joaquin Lujan.

“ Jacona, Don Jesus Lujan.

“ Cuyamungue, Don Jesus Mafia Ortiz.

<£ Pojoaque, Don Miguel Trujillo.

In December, 1845, it is shown that the then prefect of the department, Santiago Flores, addressed a letter to Serrano, as justice of the peace of the demarcation of San Ildefonso, advising him that it had been seen fit to “ reelect ” him “ justice of the peace for the coming year,” and directing him : “ As soon as you receive this to appoint the precinct justices which there ought to be within the limits of the demarcation under your charge, reporting to this prefecture with the greatest possible promptness as to whom you have appointed to those positions, in order that they be approved by his excellency the governor.”

No documentary proof was adduced showing that Serrano complied with this order, although of course the assumption would be either that the incumbents held over, or that a

Santiago Flores was not the incumbent of the office of prefect on January 12, 1846, as on that date one Jose Francisco Baca y Terr us was acting as prefect, and he appears from the record to have continued to be prefect as late as March 27 following, his successor in the office being Antonio Sena. Assuming then that Sena’s testimony can be construed as relating to the office of juez de barrio, it would have to be further assumed that the appointments for the year 1846 had not been made as commanded by the prefect and as required by law, and that therefore either the offices had been vacant from the close of 1845 until Sena’s assumption of the prefecture in April, 1846, or that a vacancy had occurred in the office of juez de barrio at Pojoaque, as to which, however, no proof has been offered. True it is that counsel for the petitioners who conducted the cross-examination of the witnesses before .the surveyor general in the proceedings initiated in 1872, testified that when the files of the former demarcation of San Ildefonso were produced before the surveyor general in 1878, in looking over them he saw a paper, not among the records as produced at this trial, signed by Antonio Sena from the prefect’s office, “ in which he designated or appointed Jose Dolorez Trujillo as alcalde suplente, located at Pojoaque, in the jurisdiction of San Ildefonso,” the witness afterwards correcting his testimony by stating that the document which he recollected to have seen “ was dated either the very last days of the month of December, 1845, or in the first three or four months of the year 1846, and it was a document appointing Jose Dolorez .Trujillo as alcalde or juez de barrio suplente of the jurisdiction of San Ildefonso at Pojoaque.” In the' brief, however, our attention is called to the fact that there is a mistake in the record, and that the word “ suplente ” in the quo

Certainly, it Could not have been a cotemporaneous paper, if Sena purported to have acted as prefect in December, 1845,

And on this subject the record contains a very suggestive fact.

It is shown that at a time subsequent to the date of the alleged grant the demarcation of San Ildefonso was divided, and from the territory of which it was composed there were established two demarcations, one that of San Ildefonso and the other that of Pojoaque, and that the records of the former demarcation were kept at Pojoaque. This of course necessarily gave rise to two justices of the peace, one of the demarcation

. 2. The impossibility of deducing from the testimony of the two Senas proof sufficient to overcome the grave doubt as to the genuineness of the grant already engendered by the proof referred to, is further confirmed by considering the state of the evidence on the subject of possession.

In the petition for grant Ortiz is represented as living at Pojoaque, and as asserting that he found himself at. that time “ with land so considerably restricted, as not to furnish a fair subsistence for the support of the large family ” -he provided for, and it' was further represented that the tract which was solicited possessed “ the advantage of containing fertile lands for cultivation, pasture and water sufficient, and else which is needed for raising stock.” .In the proceedings instituted before the surveyor general in 1872 the land embraced within the boundaries mentioned in the grant was marked on a sketch filed with the petition as aggregating about 115,200 acres, while a survey made by the United States in 1876’ — asserted by petitioners in their petition filed below to be incorrect — gave the area as 33,250.39 acres. The brief for defendants in error, however, now declares that the claim is limited to not exceeding eleven leagues, the .claim as confirmed by the court below. In the petition of 1872 it was averred that from the date Ortiz was placed in possession he “ and his heirs had cultivated a portion of said grant and the rest they have used in

“ Ortiz lived upon the land during his lifetime,, and his heirs have continued to occupy it since his death, and it has been continuously occupied by him and them, and they have always been the reputed owners of the land, and respected as such.” The evidence introduced at the trial below, however, tended to show that the upper portion of the tract in question had been claimed by the heirs of the father of. Juan Luis Ortiz under an alleged prior grant to their ancestor, and that portions of such tract had been occupied and cultivated by some of said heirs, under such claim; and a number of witnesses, relatives and neighbors of Juan Luis Ortiz during his lifetime, testified not merely that they had never known Juan Luis Ortiz to have occupied or cultivated the land, but that the existence even of the alleged grant of 1846 was not known or heard of in the neighborhood until its presentation in 1872- to the surveyor general for confirmation. Further, it is established, though Juan Luis Ortiz may have lived at Pojoaque in June,'1846, he took up his residence at Santa Fe in the house of his son Gaspar not very long after the date named. In fact, the widow of Gaspar in her testimony said that Juan Luis Ortiz died about 1861 or 1862, and that, he resided at her house, in Santa Fe for about twenty to thirty years before his death. If, however, we accept the statement of another witness, a relative named Jose Ortiz, aged 58 years at the time he testified, Juan Luis Ortiz died in 1859 or 1860, and lived with his son Gaspar, and clerked in the store of that son in Santa Fe for ten or twelve, years before-he (Juan Luis Ortiz) died. It would thus appear that Juan Luis Ortiz left Pojoaque and the vicinity of this grant for

Despite the great' weight of the adverse testimony above referred to, the claimants in the court below introduced no evidence whatever as to possession, cultivation or improvement of the alleged granted land, except that in the opening of their case there was introduced the ex parte testimony of the witnesses before the surveyor general on the first investigation.

3. The foregoing considerations, weighing against the validity of the asserted grant, are fortified by the fact that although Juan Luis Ortiz and his son Gaspar lived, prior to 1854 and subsequent thereto, in Santa Fe, where was located the office of the surveyor general of New Mexico, and the act authorizing the presentation of claims to that official was passed in 1854, it was not until 1872 that the alleged grant made its public appearance. There are also many other facts and circumstances in the record casting the gravest doubt on the genuineness of the alleged grant, and tending to contradict the testimony of the Senas. To avoid too much prolixity, however, we shall not •refer to them.

All the foregoing considerations render it unnecessary to examine the questions which are pressed in argument as to the form of the alleged grant hei’e relied on, the claimed inattention to the requirements of the regulations of 1828, and; the non-production of an expediente or of a testimonio of title, upon which questions we refrain from expressing any opinion whatever. Luco v. United States, 23 How. 528 ; United States v. Castro, 24 How. 346 ; United States v. Moorehead, 1 Black, 227 ; United States v. Knight, Id. 228 ; Peralta v. United States, 3 Wall. 434 ; Van Reynegan v.

It results that it becomes unnecessary to examine the legal questions to which at the outset attention was called, and that

The-court below erred.in confirming the grant, and its decree so doing is.reversed and the cause remanded to that court with directions to enter a decree rejecting the claim a/nd dismissing the petition; and it is so ordered.