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. 241
proving the proposition it rather strengthens the converse.
324 A plat was referred to in a patent, and courses and distances
were also set down in the grant. The plat and the courses
and distances disagreed; the land called for was on Crow river; non
constat, it was not on both sides of it. The plat showed clearly the
land was on both sides, and the question decided was the familiar one
that courses and distances were governed by natural objects, and
those natural objects could be as well shown by a diagram made part
of the grant as by any words in the patent. The general rule that
parol testimony will not be introduced to vary an instrument in writing is without exception.
24. But it is said the word margins (margines) would not be satisfied without taking land on both sides of the river. This appears to
me a very strained construction of that word. In the first place, that
view of the meaning of the word is inconsistent with the words, on
the east by, immediately preceding it. If the word margins had been
used without other words explaining its meaning, some excuse might
be urged for the construction given by Judge Thompson, placing the
land on both sides. If the land is to be taken on both sides, how
much niust be surveyed on one and how much on the other, and is
there any restriction as to boundary on the east? Cannot all the land
as well be taken on the east side of the river, except enough to include a mere margin on the west side of the river? At the commencemrent thereof, the grant recites that the claimant has petitioned,
&c., for 11 leagues of land on the margins (translated borders original margines) on the river Sacramento. Here, then, in the very instrument itself is an explanation of the meaning attached to that term
in the grant. It is not contended that Sutter ever petitioned for land
on the west side of the Sacramento, and certainly he claims none on
that side. The recital is made with a view to obtain the grant, and
the plural form of the word is used. Now, why did not the decree
extend across and include land on the west side of the Sacramento?
The language of the grant is, I have granted the said land, (i. e., the
land petitioned for.) I answer, because there is no such power in the
word margines as contended. But to make the matter still more
325 palpable, we have obtained documents from the surveyor general's office, showing how both Sutter and the government
understood that term, and showing that the word margines was uniformly used even where the land asked for and granted was clearly
located on one side only of the river named, and which constituted
natural boundary. These documents are marked X Y Z No. 5, X Y
Z No. 6. The maps filed in these papers show the exact locality.
There is no mistaking the fact that the land lies on one side only of
the river, and yet the word margins, in the plural, is used to indicate
that bound. Such seems to be the uniform use of the term in Mexican grants.
25. To pursue this matter further. If the margins of Feather river
are a boundary on the east, how can those same margins become a
bound further south than the mouth of that river? The decree, as it
now stands, is an anomaly. Both sides of Feather river are an east[REc. CCLVIII, D. T. 1862.] —16