Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 9.djvu/746

MANNINO ». BAN JACINTO TIN 00. 731 �proceeding wko mlght have Spanish or Mexican daims independent of or superior to that presented by the claitflant, or the equitable rights of other parties having ngktful daims under the title confirmed." The complainant bas no pretence of a. claim under any Spanish or Mexi- can grant to any part of the premises covered by the patent. His rights, whatever they may be, are alleged to have accrued under the act of congress of 1866, and, consequently, subsequent to that date. The patent is founded on a Mexican grant made in 1846, and ite validity is not even questioned. The claim must have been presented for confirmation on or before March 3, 1853, as that was the latest date on whieh it could have been presented under the act of congress. 9 St. 633, § 13. It was, in fact, confirmed, and the decree of confir- mation afl&rmed by the United States supreme court as early as the December term, 1863. U. S. v. D'Aguirre, 1 Wall. 311. The title was therefore settled, and it only remained to locate the grant, long before the rights of complainant had their inception. The proceed. ing for locating the grant, was, under the decree of confirmation, pending between the United States and the claimant under the grant when the act of congress of 1866 was passed and the mining claims were located, and the genuineness of the grant and its location are res adjudicata, under the authorities cited, between the United States and the patentee; and the adjudication is that the grant is "correctly located," as well as valid. Cases before cited. The complainant, de- riving whatever rights he bas from the United States, one of the par- ties, subsequent to the institution of the proceeding for confirmation, is concluded by the determination. Besides, the grant must have been located either under the act of 1860 or the act of 1864. In either case the proceedings for location were in the nature of proceed- ings in rem. The complainant or his grantor could, under the stat- ute, and should, have objected to the survey and location, and upon a decision against him have appealed to the commissioner of the gen- erai land-oflBoe, and if the decision was not satisfactory, to the secre- tary of the interior. He alleges that he did not file objections, but that parties other than himself or his grantors did, and alleged the very grounds now relied upon against the location, which were over- ruled. Nordoes it appear that even they appealed. The complain- ant, then, bas no standing to impeach the record on the ground of having a prier Spanish grant. His rights are subsequent and sub- ject to the grant as located. He is equally without standing on the other ground; he allegea no "equitable rights," or "rightful claim ��� �