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.

778 The United States vs Sutler.
tion of the-tract,) might be committed by means of antedated conveyances, it will, I think, be apparent that the mere execution of
deeds to purchasers cannot in all cases be accepted as an elec1C82 tion by the grantee of the location of the land which is to be
adopted by this court, by causing the survey to be made of
the tracts so conveyed, including them successively in the order of
their dates, until the whole quantity granted be obtained.
If, then, in any case, the grantee could be deemed by his occupation and cultivation to have fixed the location of the grant, as against
any subsequent purchasers of other portions of it, Sutter must surely
be considered to have done so.
As early as 1839, and two years before the date of the grant, he
had formed a settlement near the junction of the American and Sacranento rivers, which he named New Helvetia. In the year 1841, he
commenced the erection of a fort at his own expense, having previously been commissioned by the government to guard the northern
frontier. The fort was surrounded by a high wall, and was defended
with cannon. Within it were dwelling-houses for his servants and
workmen, and workshops for the various articles of necessity. A
trist mill, a tannery, and a distillery were attached to the es1083 tablishment. A number of Indians were domesticated by him,
and contributed to cultivate his fields of grain, and to defend
the settlement from more savage tribes. He was possessed of several thousands of horses and neat cattle, which were under the care of
his servants. There were collected at different times from twenty to
fifty families, and there were in the course of years some hundreds of
persons connected with the establishment. (Opinion of Supreme
Court, 21 How., p. 172.)
Such was the character of the establishment to which Sutter gave
the name of New Helvetia; and it had already received considerabe
development, when, in 1841, he solicited of the governor "11 leagues
of land in his establishment of New Helvetia situated towards the
north, according to the land represented in the sketch." The governor accordingly grants for him and his settlers the said land called
"New Helvetia," and in the 3rd condition defines its bound1084 aries as has been stated. It is suggested by the Supreme
Court that even without the aid of any map whereby we could
learn the actual location of the southern parallel of latitude called for
in the grant, a question might arise whether the general description
of "New 1-Telvetia" should not overrule the particular description by
metes and bounds contained in the 3rd condition. "But with the
map which shows that the line of the southern boundary is south of
New Helvetia, we have no difficulty in including it in the grant."
It is evident that the Supreme Court did not anticipate that if New
Helvetia was found to be within the exterior boundaries, any location
of the eleven leagues so as not to include it would be made. The
court even seems to have considered that the designation in the grant
of the extensive and well-known establishment of Capt. Sutter might
overrule the description by lines of latitude contained in the 3rd condition, even without the aid of the map, which showed by natural