Display Mode
Dark
Dark
Light
Light
Theme Cover
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Search History
No search history
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Media
Term
Opinion Writer
Direction
Field

Maria De La Solidad De Arguello Et Al., Claimants And Appellants, v. The United States. The United States, Appellants, v. Maria De La Solidad De Arguello Et Al.

1855 • 59 U.S. 539 • Taney Court
In Maria de la Solidad de Arguello et al. v. The United States, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a Mexican land grant made in 1841 by Governor Juan Bautista Alvarado of California was valid and enforceable under U.S law after the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo ceded California from Mexico to the United States in 1848. The claimants argued that their title should be recognized as valid because it had been issued before the treaty took effect, while the United States contended that any...Open Case
Score:
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms
1 results found
Become a Sponsor
Support Us
Feedback: We can do better!

Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Chief Taney Court
Term: 1855
59 U.S. 539
15 L. Ed. 478
1855 U.S. LEXIS 730
Argued: Apr 07, 1856

Maria De La Solidad De Arguello Et Al., Claimants And Appellants, v. The United States. The United States, Appellants, v. Maria De La Solidad De Arguello Et Al.

  • Pro
  • Pro
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In Maria de la Solidad de Arguello et al. v. The United States, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a Mexican land grant made in 1841 by Governor Juan Bautista Alvarado of California was valid and enforceable under U.S law after the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo ceded California from Mexico to the United States in 1848. The claimants argued that their title should be recognized as valid because it had been issued before the treaty took effect, while the United States contended that any such grants were invalidated when sovereignty changed hands between countries. In its ruling, which favored Arguello and her co-claimants, the court held that all pre-treaty land grants must be respected unless they are specifically revoked or annulled by Congress or other competent authority; otherwise they remain binding on both parties regardless of changes in sovereignty over time.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In Maria de la Solidad de Arguello et al. v. The United States, the dissenting opinion argued that the land in question was not part of a Mexican grant and therefore should be considered public domain subject to appropriation by Congress under its power to dispose of public lands. The dissent further argued that even if it were found to be a valid Mexican grant, it would still remain subject to Congressional disposal as all grants made prior to 1848 had been extinguished by virtue of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo between Mexico and the United States which ended their war with each other. Finally, they contended that since no title could have vested in any individual or corporation until after Congress had disposed of such lands, no one could claim ownership over them without first obtaining an act from Congress granting them permission for such use or occupation.

Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
AI Assist
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcripts
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Ask Etalia.ai
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Audio of Oral Arguments
Free Trial!
Become a Sponsor

Support Us
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms