A conveyance is good where the grantee is described by sufficient terms to designate who is intended, though neither his christian nor surname is used. Irwin vs. Longworth, 20 Ohio R., 581. Thus a deed to the wife of a person without giving her name is good. A grant to the heir of one deceased, or to the oldest son of A., without naming them, is good. Conveyances are good in many cases when made to a grantee by a certain designation, without the mention of either the christian or surname. 4 Kent's Com., 510. It is not essential to the validity of a grant that the grantee or grantees should be named; but if not named, they must be ascertained by description, so as to be distinguished from all others, and any uncertainty in this respect will render the grant void. Thomas vs. Mansfield, 10 Pick., 376. Shaw vs. Loud, 12 Mass. R., 447. The cases above cited, as well as those of Scanlan vs. Wright, 13 Pick. R., 523, and Jackson vs. Root, 18 John. R., 60, show that the parties who are to take under such a grant may be ascertained by extrinsic evidence, and when thus ascertained, shall take the property in the same manner as though their names were inserted in the grant. 2d. The designation in this grant is explicit, and the persons intended as grantees certain. They are described in the grant as "all the citizens who have solicited tracts of land, with reports in their favor, from Mr. Augustus Sutter, captain and judge, having in charge the jurisdiction of New Helvetia and Sacramento." These applications were intended for lands situated in the jurisdiction of Capt. Sutter, for to no other was he the proper certifying officer, and were therefore only those who had asked lands in the Sacramento valley. The identification of the persons intended as grantees was made doubly sure by restricting it, first, to the persons whose petitions for grants had already, anterior to that date, been presented to the governor; and secondly, to such of those petitioners as had, previous to that date, obtained favorable reports from Mr. Sutter. Both these qualifications were proved by written evidence. Every petition thus presented had already passed under the examination of the governor. Every one of them had received some official action of his upon them, and contained his endorsement of that action according to universal custom. Every one of them could, therefore, be readily identified by the official act and signature of the governor himself, endorsed on the papers containing the proceedings in the case. They were with equal facility identified by the report of Captain Sutter. This must constitute a part of the espediente to bring a petitioner within the terms of the grant, describing the grantee. This report was also official in its character, and being in writing, and constituting a part of the documentary evidence of the proceedings in the case, was liable to no mistake or misapprehension. As a class the grantees intended in the general title were well known. Micheltorena came from Mexico a stranger to California when he entered on his duties as governor, and it is a matter historically well known, and fully proved by the archives, that he declined making grants to the petitioners in the Sacramento valley until he could obtain further information, with a map of the country, &c., and that he intended making a visit of personal inspection. He therefore deferred final action for some time on all such petitions, allowing the parties, when they desired it, to go into possession, but suspending, temporarily, the proceedings for subsequent action. Insurrectionary troubles compelled him to relinquish his intended visit, and then he decided to perfect the title solicited, and issued the general grant in favor of the petitioners. The testimony of Captain Sutter shows that these petitioners for grants in the Sacramento valley were well known to the governor as meritorious applicants, and that the grant was issued at his personal solicitation, and was forwarded by courier to him for the benefit of the persons in whose favor it was made. 3d. The record shows that the claimant Nye was one of the persons described in the grant. His petition was presented to the governor, as is proved by the decree of that functionary written thereon. and signed by him, and by the further official action of the secretary of the government also endorsed thereon; and it moreover contains the favorable report of Captain Sutter in reference to the grant. He was designated and treated as one of the grantees by Captain Sutter, in giving to him a copy of the document of the general title, acording to the terms of the grant, in evidence of the right of the claimant under it as one of the grantees. This copy was given before the Mexican authority was broken by the ingress of American forces, to wit, June 8, 1846, and while Captain Sutter still held his official position under the government. He is, therefore, brought by the record clearly within the description in the grant, and has always been recognised as one of the grantees. The general rule is that a grant by the government is good without the delivery of any formal document of title to the grantee. The Spanish grants in Louisiana and Florida have been held not to require such delivery as a requisite to their validity. The original, the protocol, was retained in the public office; an official copy was usually delivered to the grantee as his evidence of title; and this would be so under the Mexican jurisdiction but for the 8th and 9th articles of the regulations of 1828, which require the final document of title to be delivered to the grantee, and a record of it to be kept in the government office. This document was not intended as the final document of title. The approval of the departmental assembly was needed before that title could be issued. Very few titles in California had this requisite; although containing plain and unequivocal words of grant, it provides in terms that a new document in greater form was subsequently to be issued. It may not, therefore, be considered within the regulations above cited, which require the final grant to be delivered to the grantee. But if such delivery was required before the grantee became possessed of an equity in the premises, which should be confirmed to him under the act of Congress of March 3d, 1851, the evidence shows that the law has been complied with in this case. The actual placing of a deed in the hands of the grantee was never, even by the strict rules of the common law, indispensable to the estate of the grantee. The delivery to a third person for the use of the party in whose favor a deed is made, where the grantor parts with all control over the deed, or where the grantee afterwards accepts it, makes the deed effectual as a conveyance of the title. Doe D. Garnon vs. Knight, 5 B. & C., 671. Belden vs. Carter, 4 Day R., 66. Souverbye vs. Arden, 1 John. Ch. R., 240. Hanson vs. Trustees, &c., 12 Mass. R., 456. Hatch vs. Hatch, 9 Mass. R., 307. Chapel vs. Bull, 17 Mass. R., 213. Rathbun vs. Rathbun, 6 Barb. R., 98. Hedge vs. Drew, 12 Pick. R., 141. McKinney vs. Rhoades, 5 Watts, 343. 1 Smith on Contracts, 9. 2 Hilliard on Real Property, 298. The delivery to Sutter was clearly a delivery for the benefit of all interested in the grant, and was as good and effectual as if delivered to each of them in person. 2. If this were not so, still it is submitted that under the Spanish system the title would be good in Nye. The delivery of the original grant by the government, represented by the governor to another public office, at the head of which was Captain Sutter, having in charge the jurisdiction of New Helvetia and Sacramento, was in accordance with the ordinary disposition of original grants. In this aspect of the case the document constituting the grant was the protocol, and the proper evidence of title to be delivered to the grantees would be an official copy, authenticated by the officer in charge of the original. Accordingly, it is specified in the document that copies shall be given by that officer, which shall serve the grantees as titles until the final and formal document shall issue ofter confirmation. Copies thus emanating from a public office, where the original belongs and is retained, are public writings, and have the same force and effect as originals, and are themselves evidence in the same manner as original documents with us under the great seal of the government, importing verity and requiring no further proof of authenticity. United States vs. Perchman, 7 Pet. R., 51. United States vs. Wiggins, 14 Pet. R., 334. Same vs. Acosta, 1 How. R., 24. Same vs. Rodman, 15 Pet. R., 130. The provisions of the regulations of 1828, above cited, requiring only the final title-that is, the title after confirmation by the departmental assembly or the supreme government-to be delivered to the grantee, there is no inconsistency in holding that the ordinary proceedings in Spanish countries in such matters might well be taken by the public authorities. This course was in accordance with their uniform rule of practice, and is surely good where no other is specifically required by law. It was competent for the governor so to order in the case, without a violation of the regulations of 1828, (as he has clearly done in the document itself,) and an official copy having been duly delivered to the claimant and given in evidence, it may well rest upon it as evidence of his right to the land claimed. Even if this were the final document of title, it is not admitted that the grant would be void under the regulations above cited. The express words of the grant show that the grant was made, the concession perfected, and the grantees absolutely invested with the estate, and the document of title deposited in a public office for the benefit of the grantees. The original thus filed with the express order that it shall be for the benefit of the grantees, and that official copies be issued to them as evidence of their title, must be abundantly sufficient to secure their right to the property. The Spanish law, recognised in this court in the cases above cited, regards such copy as an original, and the title good. In any aspect of the case, then, the claimant in this case was invested with an estate in the premises, which brings him within the provisions of the act of March 3, 1851, and is entitled to a confirmation of the decree rendered in his favor in the court below. ALPHEUS FELCH, |