For anyone interested in the Spanish and Mexican land tenure systems that were in place in the late 18th and early 19th century in California (and Texas), here is a great case, a land grant for a property known as "Rancho de las Pulgas" (Ranch of the Ticks) made in 1835 by the Mexican governor of California.
The tract was described in its title documents as follows:
> On the south the creek San Francisquito, on the north the San Matteo, on the east the estuary, on the west the Cañada de Raimundo, four leagues in length and one in breadth.
Twenty years later, in 1855, the question of the interpretation of that description arrived at the bench of the US Supreme Court.
ARGUELLO V. UNITED STATES, 59 U. S. 539 (1855)
Here is a link to the diseño or plan for Rancho de las Pulgas:
The modern world has been adopted
Bancroft Library
Land Case 54 ND
Awesome resource!
> The modern world has been adopted
> Bancroft Library
> Land Case 54 ND
Those are very cool links, Peter. What I get out of it is that the diseño I posted a link to above was actually one of several exhibits entered in the Federal District Court case. It isn't clear to me whether any are original or whether all are copies or creations.
Kent: Bancroft houses the real Originals.
It is possible to view them in real life.
> Bancroft houses the real Originals.
> It is possible to view them in real life.
Have they been scanned and made available online? It wassn't clear to me whether any of the maps used as exhibits in ARGUELLO V. UNITED STATES was the original diseño or not.
The digital copy has exquisite detail and shows the frayed edges of the linen medium used to create the map. The detail says the map was drawn with pen, ink and watercolor. Many of the other maps on the site are in the 20 +/-cm by 30+/-cm size, which may have been a standard for record with the Spanish and Mexican Sovereigns.
It is possible that the diseños on record are copies of the originals, but after the Treaty of Guadelupe Hidalgo, history states that the Spanish and Mexican Land Grant records were transfered to the U.S. Surveyor General's Office:
So, if the archive is a diseño, then it probably is an original, since more formal surveys of the land grants weren't made until after the 1840's.
AS3
Kent: Rancho de las Pulgas (Alta California)
"Have they been scanned and made available online?"
Yes. follow the links to see the online scans.
Considering the time and place I would bet the Originals were viewed and considered bu the courts.
Adam: Rancho de las Pulgas (Alta California)
I believe that is correct.
The confirmation process included a field survey by the GLO (now BLM) and the preparation of Rancho Plats very much the same as Township Plats. The Township and Rancho Plats reflect the adjoining plats as adjoiners, the same as adjoining Townships are mapped. All GLO Plats (and notes) are available at the State Lands Office, some are on line. A phone call will result in paper copies in your hands at a very modest cost.
Those GLO Rancho Plats are the root of land title.
Many Ranchos were not confirmed... I have no stats on that.
Among others the books Chaining the Land and also Spanish Grants and Quarterdecks give much more detail.
PS: I am far from an authority on this, there are many, but I am not one of them.
> So, if the archive is a diseño, then it probably is an original, since more formal surveys of the land grants weren't made until after the 1840's.
Okay, that was my first thought, but then I looked at all four maps of Ranch de las Pulgas that the Bancroft Library has. Which of these diseños is the original?
[Diseño del Rancho Pulgas : Calif. / Francisco del Castillo Negrete]
[Diseño del Rancho de las Pulgas : San Mateo Co., Calif.]
Plano qe. mantfiesza el terreno titulado las Pulgas : [San Mateo Co., Calif.]
Diseña [sic] del paraje que pide Juan Coppinger : [Rancho las Pulgas, San Mateo Co., Calif.]
That's a good question!
My first thought would be that they are all original and depict different conditions from different times. Maybe only one is from the original request for a land grant and the others may be some sort of inventory depictions for taxes? Or even early commissioned attempts at better mapping after the land was granted, in order to resolve an early boundary dispute? Judging from the dates given (1835, 184?, 184? and 1857), I do think they might all be original, but used for differnt reasons at different times.
You ask a damn good question. I would be interested to know the answer.
AS3
btw records sent to SF
They must have thought it was a good idea to send important records to San Francisco until 1906. If the records they sent did not move somewhere else prior to April 1906 it is likely they were all lost.
> You ask a damn good question. I would be interested to know the answer.
Well,in the recitals of the opinion of the court linked above, namely:
>On the 27th of October, 1835, Don Jose Estrada, executor of Don Luis Arguello, presented his petition on behalf of the widow and heirs to Don Jose Castro, the governor, praying for a grant of the "rancho of Las Pulgas" and describing its boundaries as "from the Creek of San Matteo to the Creek of San Francesquito, and from the Estheros, the estuary or bay, to the Sierra, or mountains." The petition alleged also that the Arguellos had "been in possession of the same since 1800, as is publicly and notoriously known, but the papers of possession had been mislaid."
>The rough draft (diseno) accompanying this petition represents a range of hills designated as "Lomeria baja," and parallel to these a range of loftier character marked "Sierra;" between these ranges is a canada, or valley; this is the Valley Raymundo. The claim of the petition is evidently intended to include it.
it looks to me as if the court was referring to this map:
Plano qe. mantfiesza el terreno titulado las Pulgas : [San Mateo Co., Calif.]
considering reproduction methods of the era and the 1857 date (after the Treaty and Statehood) it is a curious question.
a local historical society may have the answers, a true historical research project of major esoteric value.
I will get back to you soon with the final answer, but first...
After looking at a little more anecdotal evidence. I am going to have to say that the diseños that were brought back from Monterrey and submitted to the Surveyor General were copies made from the originals and let's just say that scrivners' errors were not uncommon, nor always apparent.
It seems that only those land owners who were well educated, wealthy, could speak English and were willing to pay 1/3 to 1/2 of their land holding as payments to American lawyers enjoyed the benifit of their land grants being upheld by records obtained from Monterrey. Even so, many Californios still lost their land through the U.S. Court System after the Treaty of Guadelupe Hidalgo. The treaty was supposed to honor the Californios' land grants, but most of the Californios who owned land under Spanish or Mexican Land Grant system lost their land because either their diseños or other land records were not accepted as authentic or they could not afford to pay a lawyer to defend their title against the U.S. Government or both.
AS3
Confirmation process
I think the GLO Rancho Plat and Field Notes are presumed to be correct.
I don't think it would be correct to get the Diseno and proceed to lay it out (if that could be done) ignoring the GLO rancho boundaries. I'm not suggesting anyone is advancing that idea, just a point of information.
Confirmation process
> I think the GLO Rancho Plat and Field Notes are presumed to be correct.
>
> I don't think it would be correct to get the Diseno and proceed to lay it out (if that could be done) ignoring the GLO rancho boundaries. I'm not suggesting anyone is advancing that idea, just a point of information.
Well, one thing that interests me about the whole business is that the Mexican titles to the rancho grants would predate the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo and the United States taking possession of the remaining undisposed lands of California. So, in the case where the public domain of the United States was surveyed up to the rancho boundaries, all sort of odd conditions might occur since the title of USA was presumably subordinate to those of the ranchos and USA had no title beyond the rancho boundaries.
Confirmation process
Some of the rancho boundaries just happen to follow section lines.
It was pretty common for the area stated in the grant to be substantially smaller than the area indicated by the called for boundaries. Contrary to the basic common law prinicple we know, it was held that the grant had to be reduced to the area granted.
Confirmation process
Well I would like to see that. I'd like to see someone try to lay out a diseno. It has got to be near impossible. it is probably near impossible to lay out from the n otes and plats for the confirmation patent.
My Favorite Rancho
[flash width=480 height=385] http://www.youtube.com/v/__tbYd-GcBg?fs=1&hl=en_US [/flash]
