Mr. Justice NELSON

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is an appeal from the District Court of the United States for the northern district of California.

The appellees, who derived their title from Juan N. Padilla, the original grantee, presented their claim before the board of land commissioners in 1852, for five square leagues of land known by the name of Bolsa de Tómales, situate in the c-ouuty of Sonoma, California. The board, after hearing the proofs, decreed in favor of the claim, which, on appeal to the district judge, was affirmed.

The documentary evidence of the title includes a petition to the Governor for the tract, dated at Monterey, May 14th, 1846. acecmpamed with a certificate of Manuel Castro, prefect, that *95 the land was vacant and grántable, dated same place, 10th same month; a marginal reference for information by the Governor, Pio Pico, dated Los Angeles, 20th May, 1846; a note of concession, dated same place, 12th June, 1846; and a formal title, dated same time and place, both signed by the Governor, and J. M. Moreno, Secretary ad interim.

Proof was given of the signatures of the Governor and Secretary, and that these papers were found among the Mexican archives,.which had been transferred to the custody of the surveyor general of the United States for California.

The original grant of the formal title to the grantee was given in evidence by the claimants, dated Los Angeles, 12th February, 1846; also, a certificate of the Governor and Secretary, of the approval on the 12th June by the Departmental Assembly, dated 14th'June, 1846.

Some attempt was made to prove possession and occupation ny Padilla before and since the date of the grant, which were denied by the Government. The clear weight of the proof in the case is against any possession or occupation. The two witnesses in support of it, aside from Padilla, clearly confounded the possession of the ranch of Padilla, called the Roblar de la Misc.ia, with that of the Bolsa de Tómales, both’ of which are in the same section of country. Padilla states that he had possession of the land in 1844; built on it in that year; that he cultivated the land, and had cattle on it from that time until he sold it to Moleña and Berreyesa, in the latter part of the year 1848, or beginning -of the year 1849. In this he is expressly contradicted by some half a dozen witnesses, some of whom cannot he mistaken as to the facts. It appears, from the evidence, that Padilla, at the breaking out of the disturbances in the early part of 1846, adhered to the Mexican Government, and was charged with having been concerned in killing some Americans in the fore part of that year; was pursued by an American force, and fled from that part of the country, and 'did not return until after, the war. (See also the testimony of Padilla in the case of the claim of Josefa de Haro and others, No. 101, before the board of commissioners; and see his grant of Roblar de la Misc.ia, 25th November, 1845.)

*96 It is admitted that the original grant of the title in form, which was in the hands of the claimants, has been altered so as to bear date the 12th-February, instead of the 12th June, 1846. No explanation was given of the alteration, though it was apparent on the face of the paper.

The genuineness of the signature of the Governor, Pio Pico, to the certificate of the approval of the Departmental Assembly, was doubted by the board of commissioners.

The board say, after alluding to tbe alteration of the date of the grant, “ there are many things connected with the claim which, under the conclusion at which the commission has arrived, were not altogether satisfactory. The time when the grant was made, only a few days before the Americans took possession of the country, the evident and palpable attempt to alter the date so as to make it appear several months anterior to the time when it was issued, and the manifest want of similarity in the signatures of Pio Pico to the papers of approval,

■ with the usual mode of signing his name, are circumstances which greatly detract from the good faith of the claim. The evidence, however, they say, makes out a prima facie case, which, in the absence of any rebutting testimony, entitles the petitioners to a decree of confirmation.”

The court is of opinion that, in consideration of the doubtful character of the claim, and entire want of any merits upon the testimony, the decree of the court below should be reversed, and the case remitted for further evidence and examination.