lation.. If the applicant wnsdissatisfied, and the delay unreasonable, he could have recovered the money which he had paid.. WhUe teceipt of the cast a moral duty upon the com· pany to act promptly, yetdela.y does not operate in the same way as an acceptance of the application. Suppose the company had delayed acting for a year, could it be claimed that the policy was in force? The propo· sition which the applicant made was for a policy to become operative when the instrument was executed and delivered. No negligence, no delay, reasonable or unreasonable, on the part of the insurance company. could make· a contract infa'oe ofthe stipulation. The decree will be entered for the defendant.
(Oircuit Oourt, Jj). D. Mf&ouri, Jj). D. April 19, 1887.)
EQ11ITY'-J'untSDtCTION-FRAUDULEN-r SALE-SUIT TO SET ASIDE.
In Equity. Demurrer to bill. \ Suit by creditors against M.Abrahl1JPs and S. Desberger, iu aid of attachment suits instituted .by them in this court, and still pending and untried. Krwm &:J01las, for complainants. . Martin, Laughlin&: Kern, for Abrahams. A fQr Desberger·.
BREWER, I., (oraUy.) tn thts case, attaching creditors levied their attachments upon a stock of goods.: A party claiming to be a purchaser interposed his claim in the provision of the state statute. The attaching creditors gave which preserved the goods in the hands of the officer, and the sale was ordered to be made. The attaching. creditor.!! now file this bill.' setting. up that the alleged purchase by this claimant was fraudulent and V"oid,andseeki:ng to have a decree of this court canceling the bill of sale: A demurrer is interposed. The fed· era! statutes contain this specific suit in equity can be maintained ifJa plain and adequate remedy at law. This provision of the feder81 .statutes is binding upon this court, no matter what may be the scope ,alldextent of statute. It seems to us that, in the proceeding instituted by this claimant at law, the question of the alleged invalidity of his purchase and the transfer can be fully
and adequately determined. That being the case, there is no need, and not Olily is there no need, bl,lt would be an impropriety, in taining a bill in equity to accomplish the same result. This I think is clear, under the federal statutes, and my Brother THAYER, who, of course, is familiar.with the practice. the state courts, says no such bill would be there. The demurrer will therefore be
(UWO'Uil Oourt, N. D. Oalifornia. March 28, 188'7.)
PtmLIO LAm>s-MEXICAN PRIOR TO CESSION. 1824,
CALIFORNIA-POWEltS OF GOVERNOll
The governor of California, after the passage of .the colonization law ot and the issue of the regulations of 1828, and pr.iorto the acquisition of California; by the United States, had no power to make grants of public lands, except in the manner and upon the terms and conditions expressed in that law and those regulations. . rower in. the governor to make such a grant, after the passage of that law, WIll not be presumed from the fact that he made the grant.
SAME-PRESW4!'TIONS AS TO POWER.
8. EVIDENCE-JUDICIAL NOTICE-MExICAN LAWS-CALIFORNIA TITLES.
The courts will take judicial notice of the laws of Me:dco, ufon which the titles to .lands in California depended, prior to the cession 0 California to the United States. were, after their adoption, the only laws in force, under which public lands in California could be granted to indIviduals or families.
.. PtmLIC LANns-CALIFORNIA-llIEXICAN LAWS. The law of 1824 and the regulations of 1828
IL SAxE-GRA.NT-MARE ISLAND-"DESERT IsLAND"-DXSPATOH OF 1838. If the grant of Mare island, which purports to have been made by Gov.
Alvarado to Victor Castro, in 1841, was intended to be made under the authorityof the dispatch of 1838, issued by the government of Mexico, to the govemorof California, it is void, for the want of power in the governor to make it. The island does not come within the words of the dispatch, as it ia not a "desert island, adjacent to the department." It is also void, because it was not made with the concurrence of the departmental assembly, as required by that dispatch.
SAME-CONCURRENCE OF DEPARTMENTAL ASSEMBLY.
SAME-FOR)( Oil' GRANT-REOORD-CoLONIZATION LAw Oil' 1824-REGULATIONB OF 1828. . The grant cannot be sustained under the colonization law of 1824, and the
regulations of 1828, because, there is no sufficient evidence of its genuineness for the following, among other reasons: It is not in the usual form of such grants; it is not attested by the secretary of state; it is not upon habilitated paper; it has none of the usual conditions of such grants: it is not recited therein that it was made in exact conformity with the provisions of the laws; there is no record of the lVant, nor any note thereof, in the records of the government; it has not receIved the approval of the departmental assembly, nor was it referred to the departmental assembly, by the governor; juridical possession of the island was not given.
& SAME-JURIDICAL POSSESSION·. By the Mexican system, under which public lands were granted, juridical possession constituted the investiture of title. .