Los Angeles Farming & Milling Co. v. City of Los Angeles

delivered the opinion of the court.

The city of Los Angeles brought suit in the Superior -Court of the county of Los Angeles against the Los Angeles Farming and Milling Company, hereinafter called the Milling Company, to quiet , the title of the city to the use of the waters of the Los Angeles River. The city of Los Angeles is situated on the Los Angeles River, a non-navigable stream rising in the San Fernando Valley and mountains adjacent, and flow

The defendant answered, and, among other things, set up a denial of the alleged paramount rights of the city in the waters of the Los Angeles River, and alleged that it and its predecessors had been- in the exclusive possession of said lands for more than fifty years under claim of title, using the waters of the river riparian or appurtenant to its estate; that the value of the premises was over $500,000; that its lands were some ten miles above the city, on the river; that the title to the lands and waters in controversy were first owned by the crown of Spain, thence passing to the Republic of Mexico, which republic, on June 17, 1846, granted to the predecessors of the Milling Company certain lands, which included the lands in controversy; that by the treaty between the Republic of Mexico and the United States the sovereign rights and titles of said Republic of Mexico in said property passed to and vested in the United States; that California, upon its admission to the Union, was prohibited from paásing any laws disposing of the public lands of the United States, or from doing any acts whereby the title of the United States in the public lands within its limits should be impaired or questioned; that the laws of the United States were extended over Califqrnia, September 29, 1850; that the Congress of the United States passed an act, approved March 3, 1851, providing for the ascertainment and settlement of .the land

The case was submitted to the court of original jurisdiction upon a stipulation of facts, which shows that the pueblo of Los Angeles was established in 1781 under the government of Spain, containing four square leagues of land, embracing the lands afterwards patented to the city under the act of Congress of March 3, 1851; that the settlers and inhabitants of the pueblo used the water from the river by means*of ditches for domestic and irrigation purposes until the time of the acquisition of the State of California by the United States, the amount of irrigable land being then about fifteen hundred acres, and it is stipulated:

“Under the laws of the Kingdom of Spain, said pueblo upon'its foundation, -by virtue of a grant under such laws, had the paramount right, claimed by the plaintiff in the complaint hérein, to use all the water of the river, and such paramount right continued to exist under that government and under the Mexican government, until the acquisition of California by the United States.”

It appears in the stipulation of facts that the pueblo of Los Angeles, in presenting its petition to the board of land commissioners, wherein it claimed the sixteen square leagues, presented as a part thereof a copy of an ordinance of the King of Spain, wherein he provides for the establishment of the town of Pitic in Sonora, and orders that the provisions relative thereto should be followed in the foundation of any new peublos in the jurisdiction of the commanding general of the internal provinces of the west, of which California constituted a part, -and attached to that petition was a copy of the plan of the town of Pitic, which contained, among things this provision:

“7th. The neighbors and natives shall likewise enjoy the

But there is nothing in the statement of facts affecting the force of the stipulation that the pueblo of Los Angeles had the paramount water right, as above stated and as claimed in-the complaint, until the acquisition of the State of California by the United States. It is further stipulated that no grant nor claim of. the real property described in the complaint was presented for confirmation under the act of March 3, 1851, except in so far as the same may have been embraced in the claim-of the mayor and common council of the city of Los Angeles presented and confirmed in the manner described, which resulted in the confirmation and patent for four square leagues of land and the rejection of the claim for the remaining portion of the premises described and claimed by the petitioners; that pursuant to that decree the United States issued a patent for the four square leagues of land; that, the city of Los Angeles was incorporated on April. 4, 1850, by act of the legislature of California, with boundaries including the four' square leagues, and the act provided that the city should succeed to all the rights, claims and powers of the pueblo of Los Angeles in regard to property, and should be subject to all the liabilities incurred and obligations created by the ayuntamiento of said pueblo. The decision of' the commissioners was affirmed by the District Court of the United States and a patent was issued on August 9, 1866, in accordance therewith, for four square leagues. After-wards, on August 12, 1875, another patent was issued by the United States for the four square leagues of land, in which latter patent no mention was made of the fact that the land

As to the land claimed and owned by the Milling Company, it is stipulated that it was contained in the Rancho Ex-Mission de San Fernando, which émbraced the lands of the Milling Company, and was an imperfect or inchoate grant made by the Mexican Government on'June 14, 1846, and the claim-thereto of the predecessors in interest to the Milling Company was presented to and confirmed-by the board of land commissioners under the act of March 3, 1851, and the patent of the United States was issued therefor on January 8, 1873; that said patent includes 121,619 acres of land, through a part of which the Los Angeles River and its tributaries flow; that said rancho is riparian to said river, and that the patent states that the United States of America granted the land therein embraced, with the appurtenances, without making any reservation or exception of any rights to said river, its tributaries or waters therein; that the value of the premises in controversy is over $400,000; that neither the city nor any of its predecessors have contested the grant, survey or proceedings in .connection with the confirmation of the claim of the predecessors in interest to the Milling Company to said rancho; that said rancho is situated on said river, some ten miles above the city of Los Angeles, and above any of the points of diversion of water by said city; that after the acquisition of California by the United States, the pueblo of ■ Los Angeles continued to exist and be managed by the pueblo authorities, and the water of said river continued to be used for domestic and irrigation purposes by its inhabitants until

Upon, submission to the trial court a judgment' was rendered in favor of the city, ordering and adjudging that the city was the owner in fee simple, of the paramount fight to take and use the water of the Los Ángeles River from its source to the southern boundary of the city of Los Angeles, so fa-r as may be reasonably necessary, from time to time, to

Upon appeal to the Supreme Court of California the judgment of the lower court was affirmed (152 California, 64H)/ and' the case is brought here by writ of error to that court.

A case can only be brought to this court from a supreme court of a State by writ of error under § 709 of the Revised Statutes of the United States, in order to determine Federal rights asserted under that section of the statutes which it is claimed have been denied by the decision and judgment of the supreme court of the State. It is therefore necessary to know just what'is comprehended in the decision and judgment of that- court. The Supreme Court of California, Sifter reciting the,proceedings and facts found in the court below, dealt with the contention of the plaintiff in error ás to the proceedings under the act of March 3, 1851, which confined the title to the lands described, and held that in confirming the title to the lands and awarding patents therefor the riparian rights of the-proprietors and patentees were left to •be deferrmned by the law of the country or State where the land is situated, angj. denied the contention of the Milling Company that the city had only title to the four square leagues of land awarded to it by the proceedings and patents under the act of March 3, 1851, with no ownership in the use of the water above the limits of the land granted, and denied the further contention that. by the proceedings and. patent to the MilKng Company’s predecessors they were adjudged the riparian owners with the use of the waters of the river running through the land us part and paree! of their estate. The court having reached this' conclusion as to the effect of the act of March 3, 1851, held that the only question in the case was m to whether under the Spanish and Mexican law the. old. pueblo of Los Angelos and the city as its successor1 had,

These decisions the court held to be determinative of the prior and paramount right of the pueblo and its successor under rights existing under the Spanish and Mexican laws, confirmed by the United States to the successors of the pueblo. The court declined to consider for what municipal purposes the water could be used as against a riparian owner, and held that the extent of the city’s prior and paramount right was not involved in the case.

Jt is thus apparent that the Supreme Court of California put the decision of the case upon the effect of the old Spanish or Mexican law as to the rights of the pueblo succeeded to by the city, and confirmed by proceedings under the acts of Congress for the purpose of confirming such titles.

We come then to consider what Federal questions are really presented in this record, and whether, in reaching the decision which we have stated the Supreme Court of California directly, or necessarily, by reason of its decision, denied such rights asserted under § 709 of the Revised Statutes. We may at once put aside, as not presenting Federal questions of Serious import, the assignments of error to the effect that the decision of the Supreme Court of California denied to the plaintiff in error due process of law or the equal protection of the-laws secured by the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. We may treat in like manner the assignments involving the construction by the Supreme Court of the state statutes, and rulings as to the admissibility of evidence. Nor do we find any denial of Federal right worthy

As to the assignment of error that the effect of the judgment is to interfere with the-disposition of the public lands by the United States.

The act of March 3, 1851 (chap. 41, 9 Stat. 631 , 634, § 14), made provision for the presentation to the commission of the former right of pueblos and the issue of patents to them upon confirmation. And further, the same section provided that the existence of a city, town or village on July 7, 1846, being duly proved, should be prima fade evidence of a grant to such corporation.

This court, speaking by Mr. Justice Miller, tersely disposes of the nature of such old Mexican titles in Adam v. Norris, 103 U. S. 591 , 593:

. “But the United States in dealing with parties claiming under Mexican grants, lands within the territory ceded by the treaty of Mexico, never made pretense that it was the owner of them. When,"therefore, guided by the action of the tribunals established to pass upon the validity of these alleged grants, the' Government issued a patent it was in the nature of a quitclaim — an admission that the rightful ownership had never been in the United States, but had passed at the time of the cession to the claimant, or to those under whom he claimed. This principle has been more than once clearly-announced in this court. The leading caises are Beard v. Federy, 3 Wall. 478 ; Henshaw v. Bissel, 18 Wall. 255 ; Miller v. Dale, 92 U. S. 473 .”

It is perhaps more accurate to say that the action of the United States in such cases is a confirmation rather than a

The assignments covering other Federal questions which should be noticed embrace the contention that the rights of the Milling Company were secured under the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo between the United States and Spain, and under the act of Congress of March 3, 1851, for the confirmation of titles derived from the Spanish or Mexican governments. The contentions as to the supposed rights derived under that treaty and act have been before this court in a number of cases, in which it has been uniformly held that rights alleged to have arisen thereunder, in the manner claimed by the present plaintiff in error, are not rights of Federal origin which, when denied, lay the basis for the review and reversal of the judgment of. the state court.

In Townsend v. Greeley, 5 Wall. 326 , Mr. Justice Field, delivering the opinion of the court, held that the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo does not purport to divest the pueblo, existing at the site of the city of San Francisco, of any rights of property or to alter the character of interests it may have held in any lands under the former government; that the treaty provided for the protection of the inhabitants in their property, and that che same rights exist as to towns under the Mexican Government, and dealing with both the treaty and the act of Congress of March 8, 1851, Mr. Justice Field, again speaking for the court in Beard v. Federy, 3 Wall. 478 , 491, etc., said:

“In the first place, the patent is a deed of the United States. As a deed its operation is that of a quitclaim, or rather a conveyance of such interest as the United States possessed’in the land, and it takes effect by relation at the time when proceedings were instituted by the filing of the petition before the board of land commissioners.

“In the second place, the patent is a record of the action of the government upon the title of the claimant as it existed upon the acquisition of the country. Such acquisition did

In the later case of Los Angeles v. Hooker, 188 U. S. 314 , practically the same contentions were made as in the case at bar .concerning the effect of the act of 1851 and the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. In that case the lands of the plaintiff in error were situated above the city of Los Angeles, and it was sought to appropriate them to the use of the city for the purpose of maintaining thereon the headworks of a system of water supply. In that case, as here, the- city contended

“Obviously, the question as to the title or right of plaintiffs in errbr in the land, and whatever appertained thereto, was one of state law and general public law, on wfiich the decision 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 of fact.

“The patents were in the nature of a quitclaim, and under the act of March 3, 1851, were ‘conclusive between the United States and the said claimants only, and shall not affect the interest of third persons.’ Thé' validity of that act was not drawn in question in the state court, and as the right or title asserted by plaintiffs in error was derived under Mexican and Spanish grants, the decision of the state court on the claims asserted by plaintiffs in error to the waters of the river was not against any title, or right claimed under the Constitution, or any treaty, or statute of, or commission held, or authority exercised under, the Constitution. If the title of plaintiffs in error were protected by the treaty, still the suit did not arise thereunder, because the controversy in the state court did not involve the construction of the treaty, but the validity of the

In Powder Works v. Davis, 151 U. S. 389 , referred to by the Chief Justice in Los Angeles v. Hooker, it was held, referring to the previous case of Phillips v. Mound City Assn., 124 U. S. 605 , that the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo protected all existing property rights, but neither created nor defined thé rights, and that a confirmation of such rights by a decree of the court did not determine rights which depended upon the Constitution, laws or treaties of the,United States.

Similar questions came before this court- in Devine v. Los Angeles, 202 U. S. 313 . In that case 244 complainants, owners of lands situated in the county of Los Angeles and in the Ranchos San Rafel, Los Felis and Providencia, and whose title was alleged to have- been confirmed pursuant to the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo by the board of land commissioners created under the act of Congress of 1851, and to whom patents had been issued by the United States, brought suit against the city of Los Angeles to quiet their title as against the claims of the city of Los Angeles to the paramount use of the water of the Los Angeles River. The bill is abstracted at length in the report of that case and it was alleged there, as here, that the rights asserted by the city and acts of the legislature and charters of the city were in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, and that the city of Los Angeles should have presented its claims to the waters of the river to the board of land commissioners under the act of Congress of March 3, 1851, and that a decree should be granted declaring the acts of the legislature of California and the charters of the city of Los Angeles invalid in respect to conferring upon the city any rights in the waters of the Los Angeles River other than.tho.se which were ascertained and confirmed under the act of March 3,1851.

An answer was filed by the city, fully setting up its rights and contentions, as the successor of the pueblo to the owner

After, the pleadings were filed the city of Los Angeles moved the court to. dismiss the ease on the ground that there was no Federal jurisdiction thereof; the motion was sustained, and the case brought to this court upon a certificate. This court held that there was no jurisdiction of the case in the Federal court, quoting in the opinion from the previous cases to the effect that the rights of the complainant depended upon the Spanish and Mexican grants confirmed by the board of land commissioners, (Los Angeles v. Hooker, 188 U. S. supra), and again held that the extent of the riparian rights of the plaintiffs alleged to be derived from the patents of the United States and confirmed Mexican grants, did not present a right, title, privilege or immunity arising under statutes or treaties of the United States. The court also cited Chrystal Springs Land & Water. Co. v. Los Angeles, 177 U. S. 169 , in which this court affirmed the ruling of the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of California,» holding that a controversy between parties claiming under Mexican grants, alleged to be confirmed and patented by the United States in accordance-with the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, was only a controversy‘as to what rights were thus granted, and confirmed, and could not lay the basis for a suit as one arising un

It is insisted that the Supreme Court of California, in holding that the term “land,” as embraced in the act of March 3,1851, did not include the riparian rights of the patentee of the land nor conclude the city from making claim of ownership of the water rights in controversy, and leaving to local law the determination of what riparian rights are embraced in the word “land,” denied to the plaintiff in error the rights which had accrued to it because of the proceedings under the act of 1851 and the benefits of the limitations upon the rights conferred upon the city of Los Angeles by reason of the proceedings and determination of the commissioners. But as these alleged rights and limitations arise under the. act of March 3, 1851, which this court has repeatedly held did not originate Federal rights or titles, but merely confirmed the old ones, we cannot review the judgment of the state court in this respect. In its opinion in the ease at bar the Supreme Court of California said that in this, respect it was following Hardin v. Jordan, 140 U. S. 371 , and this court has frequently held that the extent of the right and title of a riparian owner under a patent is one of local law. See recent deeision‘of Whitaker v. McBride, 197 U. S. 510 , and cases therein cited.

And whatever the rule may be as to patents conveying title to the lands of the United States, it has been distinctly held in this court that neither the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo nor patents under the act of March 3,1851, are original sources of private titles, but are merely confirmatory of rights already accrued under a former sovereignty.'

Both parties claim under Spanish or Mexican titles, confirmed by proceedings under the act of March 3, 1851. The Federal rights alleged by the plaintiff in error to have been violated by the decision and judgment of the Supreme Court of California, so far as concerns this, act, relate to the extent of the right and ownership in the use of the Waters of the Los

The defect of these contentions from the standpoint of Federal jurisdiction is that this court has already determined, in the cases above cited, that the act of 1851 was a confirmatory act; that by its terms it did not undertake to originate titles or make the patents to be issued in pursuance of the decisions of the commission conclusive except upon the United States; and that the extent of the riparian rights belonging to pueblos or persons receiving such patents are matters of local or- general law.

Iñ this view the writ of error must be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.