# Reply Brief Petitioner — Stewart v. United States > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386403_0030%3A07 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Reply Brief Petitioner - **Published:** January 1, 1942 - **Citation:** 316 U.S. 354 ## Text “ - IN THE Supreme Court of the United States Octosern Term, 1941, —_— No, 848, —_—— __ . Many W. SteWant, et al., Petitioners. v. £ “% Usirep Staves or America, Respondent. — . hier ee y _ PETITIONERS’ REPLY BRIEF. _ ye sical ; . J. M. Mannon, Jr., \ A. Crawrorp Greene, “ , * Atuan P. Marernew, , Ropert L, Lirmax, -. Attorneys for Petitioners, . W. H. Spaviptya, oe aa Tuomas E. Patmer, -McCttcnen, Ounty, Mannon & GREENR, Of Counsel. » April 27, 1942. (+ Press or Byron 8. Apsms, Wasninoton, D. 0, * e - INDEX TO BRIEF. Suspsecr Inpex. Introductory..... Vea rere tee i aes [. Stare Decisis. The‘ Court of ‘Appeals Was Not Free to Disregard the Decision in the Irwin Case.. 2 II. The Statute of Jimitations RES IS Oe 5 I1l. Equitable Estoppel ....:..5.......cc:cccceccces, as IV. The Findings of the Trial Court That the-Lands in Suit Are Not a Part of Mare Island and Were Not within the Casjro.Grant of the Confirmation De- -eree Were Amply Supported by the Evidence and » Should Have Bken Accepted by the Court of -Ap- ‘peals Ce ee i ie Poriucecocee 14 Conclusion Ce CC cCeeeseBoese 28 Pee eeeeeccs eleowesse teehee 16 . 4 aS oe APPENDIX. The Grant to Castro Did Not Include the Lands in Suit Nor Were They Embraced Within the Confirma- tion Decree’......... Oia WP et ene Keiey icac ae . -\ TABLE OF CASES AND AUTHORITIES CITED. Cases Crrep. etn Sea Ws ME Ce 8 hss ve bls bho or vices. 7311 * Coronado Beach Co., United States vy. (1921), 255 U.S. eee as bk on on’ rah Sadien bh ween aid f auae's hs ts 3 Cramer vy. Tinited States (1923); 261 U.S. 219 ....... 6° 8 Hussey v. United States’ (1911), 222 U. J See Irwin, San Francisco Savings Union vy. (1886), 28 Fed. Serre perl aay, 2, 3, 4, 8, 9, 10, 16 Irwin vy. San Francisco Savings Union (1890), 136 U. 8S. ace PEEL OE MPEP! & Yer Mb e k wakbes y + ody dy 4, 8, 9, 10 ‘Insular Government, Jover x) (1911), 221 U. 8. 623. oe deems Bayou ely, Club ve United States (1923); 260 U. ; é ; jh 12, Jover v. Insular Government. (1911), 221 U. 8. 623... .. 16 c oie cae Index to-Brief Continued. | pee bd - Page Lee Wilson & Co. v. Unite ‘States (1917), 245 U.S. 24 12 Minnesota, United States ¥. (1926), 270 U. S. 181,208 4 Mulford, Ward v. (1867), $9 Cal, B65 6.25. coco ec ckei 17 O’Donnell, United States v. (1938), 303 U. S: 501, : i a -3, 9,10, 18 Oste rhaus, Sawyer v. (1914), 212 Fed. 765......°...:. 4 - Roseberry, Wright v.. (1887), 121 U: S. 488 ....(..... 3, 4 San Francisco Savings Union vy. Irwin (1886), 28 Fed. ee. POE Cee ee Peele a ee ‘2, 3, 4, 8, 9, 10; 16 San Francisco Savings Union, Irwin-v. “ (1890), 136 U. De OW s 5 Hib e-Ghidi achieve ves aatte 3s 2, 3, 4, 8,9, 10 Sawyer y. Osterhaus (i914), 212 Fed, 765 ....... mek. ie | Leschemacher-v. Thompson (1861),48 Cal. 11....... ae: | - United States, Causey v. (1916), 240 U.S. 399.........- 12 . United’ States v. Chandler-Dunbar Water Power Co. v (00D) OU A gon pckhovic de ctbuwike ree 6, 7, 11 - United States vy. Coronado Beach Co. (1921), 255 U. S. Oa eRe dhe oly cheb sd oe one onde eke nbees FT ie United States, Cramer ¥..(1923), 261 U.S.219......1. 13 United States, Hussey v. (1911), 22 17S % See Se 5 -: United States, Jeems Bayou etc: Club v. .(1923), 260 © SEPM UL hs bin Lad Adin kaso en aad ca ew EERE een 12 . United States, Lee Wilson & Co. v. (1917), 245 U. S..24 12 United States v. Minnesota (1926),270 U.S. 181, 208.. 4 United States v-O’ Donnell (1938), 303 U. 8-501. .3; 9, 10, 18 Utah Power & Light Co. v. United States (1917), 243 . me EP Rel EL EI GL aR A li. ‘Wd y. Mulford (1867), 32 Cab. 365.............00.. 17 Wilson & Co. v. United States (1917), 245 U. S: 24.. 12 Ww right \ v. Roseberry (1887), 121 U.S. OU bs vks'ss cuss 8 _ ie . . STATUTES Crrep. ¢ UB. Cy Title 43, ‘See. 1166 ...... gpebeiebicsesyees 8 . , Texrsooxs CiTep. _ Pomeroy, Equity Jurisprudence (5th ed.) Sec. 818 .... 11 -: | Cours Rutes Crrep. . " - Rule 52(a), Rules of Civil Procedure ..............-. “14 > : IN THE ren Court, of the Gnited States Ocroser Term, 1941. Bans s a No. 848. . : c ~ Mary W. Stewart, et al., Petitioners, * . v.. ( Unireép States or America, Respondent. ” Eats \ } j — _PETITIONERS’ REPLY BRIEF. ; _ INTRODUCTORY. This reply brief will conform essentially with the order ° observed in petitioners’ opening brief. In the ifterest of brevity thé discussion of principles of equity and the de- fefise of eQuitable estoppel will be included in a single sub- division (IIT). 7 a cers Holmes previously quoted, it is “almost or quite without use.”” ; : rae een ee &, Spat Na. 7 “TI. : / EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL. De lang ° “The. Government? s brief admits that the United States. « - is subject, as a a suitor, to ‘‘the general principles of equity * but denies: that. the rale means ‘that ‘‘the legal rights ofthe ‘United States: are to be détermined upon general notions - of fairness without regard to present or established dias | ° ciples.’’- (Govt. Br. 52) - ' Mp tiioner defense pf. catitable}estoppel i is “based ' upon: th follow'ng circumstances, which are indisputably, estab- . lished upon this records): bbe : 1, Thege netitionsr’ and their predeéessors had hen | in undisturbed and undisputed: posséssion .of these ’ lands for a great.many years continuously. Their title was not questioned by the Government from 1890 when the decision in Irwin v. San Francisco Savings Union -was affirmed by this. Court (136 U.:S. 578) until 1930 ee this suit was brought, a period of 40. er _ There has been neither Gov ernment possession ‘nor i atieeeehed possession of these lands, singe 1890. 3. All 4 these petitioners pyretiasdd their lands after patents had been issued by the Government. (Paren- - _thetically, the Government ‘brief is in error in reciting " that the ‘Sears Pofnt Toll Road Co. constructed its toll road ‘‘affer (sic) ° Congress granted a right-of- way . . . across the langls in suit’? (Govt. Br, 11). The fact is that the toll road was-built ten years prior to the Con: gressional grant of 1926, ds the Government? ’s brief -- shows on the same page, ‘and likewise Rrior to the in- _ stitution of this suit in 1930.) 4: The three Government patents ‘ were jssued 34 . years, 20 years and nearly 6 years, respectively before the. bringing, of this suit. ‘Adi were issued voluntarily, and the most’recent patent was not issued until after the Secretary of the Interior had given notice to the Secre: sci of the ee who made na, 5 heya) 3 4 i re Riese ee gk Bee intel ne, ae VAR 2 eae al e | ‘win State potent covering these bie was issued , Man 1874. ¢ ae : The expenditure: made by these’ petitioners: in the *. purchase and improvement of their lands ‘have exceeded sticarin, 7. At no time during the period of. 40 year s Oi ; fram 1890 to 1930 has the Government, ‘by act or word, ae title in itself or ——— the ey of the Ir@in decision. . In 1896 the Xavy. ‘Yard Commandant assented to a “ eury ey for the’ purpose of fixing the boundary’ be- - tween these lands and, the Gov ernment dands and such a surver was made. - 9. In 1913 the: Navy Department filed for iis in the Reeorder’s Office: for Solano County, California, a vation, Mare Island, Vallejo, Cal.’’ . Tlie filing was in ‘ formal ‘‘Map Showing Location of U. S. Naval Re sser- k -- aceerdance with’an Act of the California Legislature of 1897 ‘ceding to the United States exclusive jurisdiction of Jands oceupied by the United States for military pur- | poses or defense, This map (Ex. 9, R. IV-38) shows that the resérv atYon did not cover any of the lands here in suit but stopped at the present Navy Yard boundary - - fence. “10. In 1914:the N NAV SY ard suite ities constructed a fence ‘along the southerly. boundary of these. lands, and that. boundary fence has ever gince continuously been - maintairied by, the Gover nment, - 19 These are the main eiroumstances ‘upon whieh: petitioners 8 have rested their defense of ‘dquitable estoppel, and we re- ‘peat that-the facts outlined’ above have been indisputably established upon this record... We would not have the Court confused by’ sciementicnin } in the Government’s brief that there has not been acquiescence _ by the Gov ernment in the Jrwin decision. The Government brief refers to certain circumstances. suggesting that the United States had not abandoned its claims to these lands, hut itwwill be found upon examination that these references are primarily. to the lands in Survey No. 34. involved in the O'Donnell @ase and that the record citations are to the rec- m : . 10 | as : ord in the O’Donnell case which is not before this. Court. : (Govt: Br. 12-13) The Government brief -doex not. attempt to explain or excuse the failare of the Government, by word or actsfrom 1890 to 193), to assert any claim to these lands ° or to challenge the title or possessign of these petitioners. « Beyond doubt there was atquiescence in the Trwin decision as to these lands from 1890 to 1930, and it avails the Gov- ernment nothing to show tal it was claiming the O ’Domiell vy Yard boundary fence and. ed possession and use of . lands which lie within the N? which had been in:the uninter the Government, — We pass to certain specific contentions advanced: i in 5 the Governnient’ s brief: roe ; Kk irst, it is suggested that silica argument mounts to no more than;a claim to a prescriptive title and it is argued that ‘‘mere occupancy of the public lands and im-° - prov ay ther eon gives no vested right therein as against the United States. ”” (Citing eases) (Govt. Br. 93) Wemake . no such contention and the-cited cases are not in point. These petitioners are not ‘‘mere o¢cupants”’ of Government lands. They hold title under solemn patents from the United . States and they rely upon an adjudication of title which bad ; stood. unchallenged ‘for 40 years.” : _ Second, it is argued 4 that a court of equity should nak: en- force ‘a colorable title, like that asserted by petitioners, .be- cause of a reluctance to oust intruders upon Government property%”’ (Govt. Br. 54) Cases are cited suggesting that ‘‘In this way; the public domain would soon be appropriated . by adventurers.’ (Govt. Br.S4, 65) But these petitionérs -. have no merely ‘“ § 818). - a sd : 4 . fiedly to oust the power company. This appears , clearly ‘ - from the following statement taken from the opinion of this Court in that case: — po “The principal object 6f the suits, as is said/in one of the briefs, is to test the -vadidity of these hpbensehe rights, and, if they be found invalid, to require the defendants to conform to the legislation of Congress: or, at their option, to remoye from the governinent lands.”’ (243. . * U.S. page 403) All that the Government realy sought was compliance . with Government laws, rules and regulations réspecting the enjoyment of rights on lands within the national forests. (See also the-opinion of the Circuit Court of Appeals in bn -sanie case below, 230 Fed. 328, 339-340). The Gove was not seeking a forfeiture. The case of Causey v. United States (1916) 240 U. S. 399, reviewed upon pages 55 and 56 of the Gévernment’s ” brief, involved a suit by the United States to cancel a pat- ent issued through improper use of Government scrip. There the patentee and his assignee were W rong-doers, hav- ing obtained the patents through fraud. Being wrong- doers they were required to restore the title unlawfully ‘ obtained and could not claim equitable relief. These peti- tioners on the other hand are not wrong-doers. ‘ The case of Lee Wilson & Co. v. United Staley (1917). 245 US. 24, upon which the Government also relies (Govt. Br. 59) was again a case of frand, or of error so gross as to set to fraud, and the Government acted upon the discovery of the fraud. .The case simply holds*that when fraud has been shown on the part’ of one who has secured title to Government lands. the Government may ,not be estopped by acts of its administrative officers ‘‘before the discovery of the fraud.’’ tee The case of Jeems Bayou etc, Club v. United States (1923) 260 U. S. 561, was likewise a case of fraud or, in the aes of - opinion of this Court in that case, ‘there 3 he was ‘‘such gross and palpable error as) to constitute in : effect fraud upon the Government’’ (260 U. S. 563-564). ‘ The case of Cramer v. United States (1923) 261 U. 8. x1 219, arose upon a suit brought by the Government on behalf of certain Indian wards to cancel a patent issued under the- ~ Railroad—Aet-of- 1866 upon the ground that certain “of the— -— lands embraced within the patent were at the time of. the. “* act-and ever since had been occupied by these Indians and therefore were excepted from. the railroad grant. The ’ essence ofthe holding of the Court i is disclosed by the fol- lowing excerpt from the opinion (p. 234): : +**Since these Indians, with. the implied coithent of the ° government, had acquired such rights. of occupancy as entitled them to retain possession as against the de-_ -fendants, no officer or agent of the government had authority to deal with the land upon any other theory. The-acceptance of leases for tlie land from the defen- dant.company by agents of the government. was under -. ++ the a mstances, unauthorized, and could not’ bind - —_thooeenment; much less could it deprive = Indians their rights.’’ (Citing cases) “* The case is “not in point here. As we appraise the cases upon which the Government | relies, none of them can afford authority or warrant for the effort of the Government to dispossess these petitioners. ° and forfeit their titles when they are innocent of any wrong-doing or of any charge of wrong-doing or bad faith. . ‘They have relied upon United States Government patents. and upon a long standing adjudication of title. ‘Petitioners’ case would seem to be both within the terms — and: responsive to the purpose of the rule of — estopant which we ‘invoke against, this suit. ~ __¢ was embraced-within the Castro grant nor r within the_con- is _____cepted by the Court of Appeals. : U pon this essential point the opposing AE ies 3 ? 14 - IV... - "The Findings of the Trial Court That the Lands in Suit Are ; Not a Part of Mare Island and Were Not Within the — Castro Grant or the Confirmation Decree Were Amply Supported by the Evidence and Should Hav — | In petitioners’ opening brief it sis shown, in discussing this i issue, that the inequitable result, of the judgment of the inajerity below could have been avoided by: construing the confirmation“decree as it is written—as embracing only the lands called Mare Island, which did not include any of the ’-Jand in suit. The trial court found that none of this land ‘was ever known as or called Mare Island, that none of it—— firmation decree, and that accordingly it passed te the State _ under the Sw vamp and Act.. These findings re saere ” by the overwhelming weight of the evidence. The majority in the court below have disregarded these findings and- have failed to give them any effect though manifestly.they are of ‘cgntrolling importance, as the dissenting opinion of Judge Mathews makes plain. , Br. 28-35) fails to meet us. No reason is shown why the call of the confirmation decree for ‘‘the place called ‘Isla de la Yegua’ or Mare Island’* could not and should not have been given effect. = 0 0° wr : : The ev idence s ting the trial court’s findings. was reviewed in detail he appendix to petitioners’ opening ‘brief. This review, though to some extent discussed in the opposing brief, has not been answered. So far as that dis- -eussion calls for a reply it will be: found in the appendix _ hereto. in the opening brief ( page 63) attention was dirécted to thet failure of. the. majority of the court below to accept the _ findings of the trial court, in derogation, as it seemed to us,. - from the requirements of Rule 52 (a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure. The brief of the Government does not in terms seek to justify this failure to observe the rule. % ‘ ‘2 8. fy kee CONCLUSION. | The argument for ‘the Government is brought ‘to delosp with the suggestion that ‘‘There may_be ciréumstances ) indicating that petitioners, to the extent they are’ not’ in- ~ sured, should be reimbursed by the Government for ex) _ penditures in improving the lands or for other costs * * mo (Govt. Br. 66). Thus, tie essential injustice—the inequity - “of this suit on the paft of the United States appears at length to find implicit recognition in the Government’s brief. While this conece§sion aids the case for the petition- ers, We can see neither reason nor justice i the suggestion —__ thata distinction may bs draw between the pedliggers and: their insurers. The assured and their insurers alike have - relied upon the circumstances which have okie rise to an . ‘equitable estoppel. This tardy recognition of the inequity in the Govern- ment’s suit is marred by the suggestion that if the petition-‘~ ers are to be ‘‘reimbursed by the Government”? such relief must be obtained from the legislative department.. (Govt. Br. 66) It is our view. that the protection which petitioners . seek against inequity. may be found within ‘‘the sphere of judicial authority” and i in this immediate cause. Respectfully submitted, WJ M. Maxwoy, ‘SJR., A. CrawForD GREENF, AuLAN P, Marruew, Pie . Rosert L. Lipman, . © . se Attorneys for Petitioners: W. H. Spaviprne, eee , . Tuomas E. Patmer, ‘ etna “McCurcuen, Otney, Mannon & GneEne, catics = ° Of Go Counsel. Dated: Washington, D. ©.. April 27, 1942. Petre ys hae a 16: + APPENDIX. The Grant to Castro Did Not Include the Lands i in Suit Nor - Were They Embraced Withirf the Confirmation Decree. In petitioners’. ppening br ief (pages 63-70) it was shown that the lands bse in suit were not a part of Mare Island; : Were not, unde ‘were not covered by. the decree of the Board of Land Com- missioners confirming the Castro grant. In the appendix to our brief the evidence as to the boundaries of. Mare Island according to Mexican law was te¥iew éd, showing that * the island consisted of only the high land. The evidence as ~~ to what was called or known as Mare Island showed that. - nothing but the high land, aud the high land alone, has never been known or called by that name. lt. is significant that the Government’s argument upon this point is entitled ‘‘The grant of Mare Island to the, United States included the Jands in-suit.’’ The description | Z in the Bissell-and ‘Aspitiwall deed to the Government is, as Mr. Justice Field said in the Jrwin case, ‘‘more extensixe .than the one covered in the grant to.Ca:iro‘or by-the Com- missioners in -the-deeree confirming the claim under it’’ ‘(28 Fed. 714) and, as Mr. Justice Field went on to hold, Bissell anid Aspinwall could - not. convey more than they acquired under the grant. We are concerned, therefore, with what was granted to Castro. — As to what, according to the Mexican law, passed by a grant of ‘an island, the only answer to Professor Radin’s clear testimony that only the land lying above highest high- water mark would. pass is a bald statement that there is ~ nothing in the Mexican law inconsistent with a grant of all of the land down to high-water mark. The case of over v. Insular Government (1911) 221 U. S. 623 is a ease involving © the powers of the Governor of the Philippines, where the land below: highest high-water mark was granted for the specific purpose of reclamation and improvement, and is no- authority that a grant by ‘the Mexican Government under . Q hé Mexican law, granted ‘to Castro; and -. ~~ ; the colonization law, such as we have here, would, without any spécific mention, carry, title to the land below the line . . of highest high-water. Such cases as the Coronado Beach ease, .Teschemacher v. Thompson and Ward v. “Mulford | merely held, as the Government has elsewhere claimed, that - where land below highest high-water has been confirmed arid patented it is too late to claim, collaterally, that the patent covers too much. No one of these cases goes so far as to hold that; under the Mexican law, a private grant-on tide - water goes to the line of ordinary. high-water mark. nesses as to the elevati Nor. does’ it advsinee .the Government’s case to. argue ~ (Govt. Br. 69) that under the civil law an island is a body of land entirely surrounded by water. The question yet remains—at what tide? The Mexican law: answers this, as’ Dr. Radin testified, at the line of highest high title through- : out the year. On the question of fact as to whether the lands in the ‘‘neck’’ were below the line of highest high- -water, the Gov- ernment:wholly fails fo meét us. In answer to petitioners’ rowing of the testimony of the eye witnesses that the early 1900’s (Apdx. iv), before the artificial reclamation work was done, and the testinjony of the Government’s wit- of the tule swamp (Apdx. r-vii), the Government.remarks that this was in 1900 andMnot in 1852. (Govt. Br. 70) »The Government ignores the.fact that its own witnesses testified that the. natural process at the *‘neck’’ has been one of accretion or filling and not one of cutting (R. TI—523, 590-592), so that conditions in 1890 -’ were more, and not less,.favorable to the Government than they were in 1852. - The Government again fdverts to the sand ridge. , We ‘*neck’’ was frequently overflowed in the late 1890’s and . s stated in our brief that none of the testimony showed aay y. sand ridge in the narrows of: the neck. (Apdx. »Xiii) Government says in reply that it is plain from Lieutena “ _Smith’s whole testimon; that the ridge extended through Survey 34. (Govt. Br. 70. 71) We repeat what we said i in petitioners”: opening brie! ,—that it is not without signifi >. wl a ; ED i cance. that upon sch a cruciakgpéint the ‘Government has no specific testimony. that there was. a sand ridge. at the *~ narrows of the neck, that the eye witnesses testified that it © was all tule marsh (Apdx. xiv) and that the Government’s - ~ own map by Rousseau (Ex. S-1, R. IV—26) shows .no sand 21 ridge at this point. . * “ot In petitioners’ opening brief” we ‘challengéd the: accuracy of, the Government’s Exhibit T (R.-IV— 28), particu- - larly ; at the critical Station 48. The Government ‘answers by ignoring Station 48 and discussing stations at other points. (Govt. "Br. 72) The Government. brief does not deny: thaf Captain Carlson testified as to how the line of . 1852 is derived just as-we said he did’ (Apdx.\kv) nor that, as indicated by petitioners, the legend on the pxhibit itself confirms that (Apdx. xv) nor, as petitio ‘pointed out, - that the line of 1852 at Station 48 was ‘net drawn as Captain Carlson and -the exhibit itself. said. it should have been >. drawn. Nor does the Government undertake to state that “the line, of 1852 was correctly drawn as Station 48." Qur argument is not answ ‘ered—it i is shnply ignored. The eye witnesses, as we have said, testified that the neck -was frequently overflowed.” (Apdx. iv) Far from show-: ing that this was not so, the Government goes outside the record and quotes. from the Joy report in the O’Donnéll — case (Govt. Br. 72) language which. demonstrates that our own W itnesses were correet: ‘ ‘ a5 ‘*The results of my investigations and observations ne while gn the ground jead me te believe that there-is no ‘ . doubt that water at extra high tides, from San Pablo. Bay, erdssed_over the narrow strip of land in. sees. 14 ‘and 15, ‘gt extra high tide and probably at ordinarily high tides with a stiff wind from the southwest, but that ‘the water crossed over the shore of the Bay, more in the ~ manner of an overflow, a broad sheet: ‘or spillw ay, with- > out any definite channel, and only i in one direction to - the. northeast away from the Bay.”’ . ia : Upon the record it is plain that the land was frequently under water and, therefore, under. the Mexican law all that e .- & ‘ + » : . e s . - ‘passéd to Cautre was the high land iin ). highest high-water, which excluded all of dhe land in suit. The concept of Mare Island accordit @the Mexican law conforms exactly with the popular ur fistanding of what _ was called Mare Island. And it was thé island named ‘La ‘Y egua’’ that was granted to Castro. We have pointed out in some detail (the maps, the Sloat Board. Report. and the hoyihe tn proceedings—Apdx. xvii-xxviii). the evidence showyhg that nothing but the high land was ever known or alled by that name.. The Government ‘nevertheless chal- lenges the trial court’s finding. (Govt. Br. 32-35) It is significant that the Gavernment refers to rio map supporting its claim. It is. suggested, however, that because the Bissell.and Aspinwall deed purported to cover more - than the Righ land and because the Government from time td time clainied the swamp land in Survey 569 as being a fart of Mare Island,:this shows that the land was known as or Called Mare Island. (Govt.:Br. 33) ‘This is no® a _ reply. © Petitioners’ disenssion of the Sloat. Board Report (Apdx. xxii-xxvi) should be compared with that in. the Gov- - ernment’s brief. (Govt. Br. 34-35) > : What was granted to.Castro was the island waieed “La Yégua.’’ The decree of confirmation expressly states that **the place of which confirmation i is given is situate in the _ Bay 8f San Francisco and: is called ‘Isla°de la Yegua’ or - Mare Island....’? (R. V-70)” Accordingly, upon the record _there was tro warrant for the action of the majority of the Court of Appeals in overruling the finding of the trial court . is that the lands in suit were noka part of. Mare Tsland, were not granted to Castro, and were not covered by the econ- firmation decree. . ite ee avs --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386403_0030%3A07. Public record. Not legal advice.