Supreme court of the United States. No. 135. The United States, appellants, vs. John A. Sutter. Appeal from the District court U.S. for the Northern district of California.

The United States vs. Sutter. 121
amination the witness states that there were about twenty families of
Europeans and Californians, and from ten to twelve of civilized Indians from the different missions, besides transient Indians who came
to work and went away again. This testimony is substantially cor.
roborated by the depositions of John Bidwell, Samuel J. Hensley,
Pearson B. Reading, and other witnesses in the case. Bidwell testifies
to the settlement of more than twelve families within the supposed
limits of the grant from 1841 to 1843, and gives the names of many
of the settlers, together with the dates and location of their respective
settlement. The other witnesses testify to other settlements between
that time and the occupation by the Americans in 1846. Samuel
Kybens testifies that when he arrived in the country, in October,
1846, there were twenty-one families settled on the rancho,
154 thirteen of which had received lands of Capt. Sutter, to his
knowledge. The testimony on this point establishes the fact,
beyond a reasonable doubt, that at the time the grant was made, in
1841, or very shortly afterwards, the twelve families required by the
law had been settled on the land, and between that period and the
American occupation the number had been largely increased. It does
not appear on what terms these settlements were made, or the nature
of the tenure by which the lands occupied by the settlers were generally held. In some instances it is shown that sub-grants were made
by the claimant to his settlers in fee simple, in others for a term of
years, but in most of the cases there is no evidence as to the right
or title under which the settlements were made. According to the
views expressed in a former part of this opinion, that fact is not material in the decision of this question. The law appears to have left
the terms of settlement to be agreed on between the empresario and
his colonists, with the single restriction that they shall not be in contravention of the laws of the republic. The actual settlement and
occupation of the land being the object and purpose of the law, the
establishment of that fact by the proof must be considered a compliance with the terms of the grant, and sufficient to vest in the grantee,
and those claiming under him, the right of property in the premises
discharged of the condition. The failure, therefore, of the claimant
to show the approval of the grant by the supreme government can,
on this ground, present no obstacle to his right in equity to a confirmation.
It is also urged by the counsel for the claimant that the repeated
recognition by the Mexican authorities of the rights of the grantee
under the grant is sufficient to raise a presumption it had been duly
approved by the government, but, from the view taken on the subject, the decision of this point would not affect the result; it is therefore unnecessary to discuss it. It may be remarked, however, in
this connection, that the several acts by the Mexican authorities in
recognition of those rights and their long acquaintance in the continued and uninterrupted exercise of notorious acts of ownership
155 over the premises by the claimant, as disclosed by the testimony, are strong corroborating circumstances going to show