· UNITED STATES v. MAXWELL LAND-GRANT 00. 19
Umrsn Srurss v. Mixvvsnn msn-Gaim Uo. and others. —
(0ireui¢ Oourt, I). Oolorado. July 28, 1884.)
1. Linn GnAm——Errscr or- Consrnmsronr Aer or Conemsss on Bmzvszrorvs
Rsronr.
An act of congress confirming the report of the surveyor general of the terri-
tory of New Mexico as to the validity and extent of a Mexican land grant oper·
ates as a grant de rwvo of all the land within the boundaries as given in that re·
DOYL.
2. SAMs:——Ermon on Fiuun or SURVEYOR—POWERS on rms CoURTs.
lf a surveyor, having beendirected to make a survey of 22 leagues, in fact sur-
veyed 44 leagues, and platted a tract thereof, the error is one that can be cor-
‘ rected by the courts, even after the issucof the patent; and that, notwithstand-
ing the principle that a confirmatory act of congress secures to the patentee
all the land included in the boundaries given in the surveyor’s report.
3. BAME—OFF1CERS or rim Govmn1ms.nr—AonNcr—Scorm or Auruomrr.
All the oiilcers of the government, from the highest to the lowest, are but
_ agents with delegated powers, and if they act beyond the scope of those dele-
. gated powers their acts do not bind the principal.
4. sAME—INVALIDPPY—SUBSEQUENT Pnncussmss—Wn.·.·r rs N orion.
When a.patent on its face recites the terms of the original petition and grant,
_ and gives the description in full, as well as the lines of the survey based
thereon, the purchaser of a title under such patent is chargeable with notice
of whatever it contains.
On Demurrer to the Bill.
J. A. Bentley, for complainant.
Frank Springer and C. E. Gust, for defendants.
. Bnswnn, J. This was an action brought bythe United States to
set aside a patent to what is known as the Maxwell land grant, or to _
so much of it as lies within the state of Colorado. The case now
stands on demurrer to an amended bill. Two principal questions
have been presented and argued. ,
First. It is insisted that the extent of the original concession to
Beaubien and Miranda did not exceed 11 square leagues to each, or
less than 96,000 acres, and that the description in the petition, and
other papers executed while the territory was a province of Mexico
and before its acquisition by the United States, only defined the outer
boundaries within which a tract of 22 square leagues could be se-
lected by the applicants; and this, because, under the Mexican decree V
of August 18, 1824, as well as the regulations of November 21, 1828,
only 11 square leagues could be granted to any one person; that the
confirmation by the act of congress must be understood as limited to .
~ the terms of the original concession, and as confirming only a grant
to that extent. I think the case of Tameling v. Freehold Co. 93 U.
S. 644, eifectually disposes of this question. That case held that the ”
confirmation by an actof congress was equivalent to a. grant de novo,
and I seeing no substantial difference between that case and this. I
lu order to a clear understanding of the point of difference presented
by counsel for _the government, a brief statement of the action of con-
gress IS necessary. A . . .