| No search history |
Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

John Greer and others brought a case against S.M. Mezes, Maria de la Solidad Ortega de Arguello, and Jose Ramon Arguello to the Supreme Court of the United States in 1860. The plaintiffs argued that they had been wrongfully deprived of their property rights by defendants who claimed title to it through an invalid Mexican land grant from 1844. The court found that while there was evidence supporting both sides' claims, ultimately no one could prove ownership due to lack of records or witnesses from Mexico at the time when California became part of the U.S., making it impossible for either party to establish clear title over the disputed land grant area in question. As such, neither side was able to prevail on their claim and thus were denied relief by this decision handed down by the Supreme Court justices at that time
In the case of John Greer and Others v. S. M. Mezes, Maria de la Solidad Ortega de Arguello, and Jose Ramon Arguello, Chief Justice Taney delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the plaintiffs had failed to prove their claim for title to certain land in California by virtue of an 1844 grant from Mexico's government prior to its cession of California to the United States under the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848. He noted that while it was true that Mexican law provided for grants before cession, there were no facts presented showing any such grant had been made or accepted prior to cession; thus, even if validly granted after cession but before patenting by Congress (which did not occur until 1860), it would be void as against public policy since it would interfere with Congressional authority over public lands within newly acquired territories like California. Furthermore, he stated that even if a valid pre-cession grant could be established without proof from Mexico itself (which was impossible due to lack thereof) then still only those who held actual possession at time of treaty ratification could have rights recognized; here however none existed so again no title passed regardless whether pre- or post-cession granting occurred.