Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Civil Procedure · MBE-tested
BERREYESA v. UNITED STATES
154 U.S. 62323 L. Ed. 913·Supreme Court of the United States·1876
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
BERREYESA v. UNITED STATES.
APPEAR PROM THE DISTRICT COURT OP THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OP CALIFORNIA.
No. 83.
Argued November 2 and 3, 1876.
Decided December 11, 1876.
When it does not appear that a grant from the Mexican Republic had been deposited and recorded in the proper public office, among the public archives of the republic, this court must decide adversely to a claim under it.
Mr. II. W. Carpenter and Mr. P. Phillips for appellant.
Mr. Attorney General, Mr. Montgomery Blair and Mr. S. O. Houghton for appellee,
[MAJORITY — Mr. Chief Justice Waite]
Mr. Chief Justice Waite
delivered the opinion of the court.
Notwithstanding the great ability with which this cause has been argued before us on behalf of the appellant, we are unable to distinguish it from a large number of cases to be found in our reports, in which we have felt compelled to decide adversely to claims made under alleged Mexican grants, because it did not appear that a grant from the Mexican government had been “deposited and recorded in the proper public office among the public archives of the republic.” (United States v. Cambuston, 20 How. 64; United States v. Castro, 24 How. 349; United States v. Knight, Adm., 1 Black, 251; Peralta v. United States, 3 Wall. 440.)
The decree of the District Court is, therefore, affirmed upon the authority Of those cases. Affirmed.