Court : US Supreme Court
Worcester v. Georgia - 31 U.S. 515 (1832) U.S. Supreme Court Worcester v. Georgia, 31 U.S. 6 Pet. 515 515 (1832) Worcester v. Georgia 31 U.S. (6 Pet.) 515 CERTIORARI TO THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF GWINETT IN THE STATE OF GEORGIA Syllabus A writ of error was issued to "The Judges of the Superior Court for the County of Gwinett in the State of Georgia" commanding them to send to the Supreme Court of the United States the record and proceedings in the said Superior Court of the County of Gwinett, between the State of Georgia, plaintiff, and Samuel A. Worcester, defendant, on an indictment in that Court. The record of the Court of Gwinnett was returned, certified by the clerk of the Court, and was also authenticated by the seal of the Court. It was returned with, and annexed to, a writ of error issued in regular form, the citation being signed by one of the Associate Justices of the Supreme Court and served on the Governor and Attorney General of the State more than thirt...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Crane v. Lessee of Morris - 31 U.S. 598 (1832) U.S. Supreme Court Crane v. Lessee of Morris, 31 U.S. 6 Pet. 598 598 (1832) Crane v. Lessee of Morris 31 U.S. (6 Pet.) 598 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Syllabus Upon a deliberate review of the questions of law discussed and decided in the case of Carver v. Jackson ex dem. of Astor, 4 Pet. 1, the Court are entirely satisfied with the opinion and judgment pronounced on that occasion. The circuit court has no authority whatsoever to order a peremptory nonsuit against the will of the plaintiff. This point has been repeatedly settled by this Court, and is not now open for controversy. The circuit court cannot be called upon, when a case is before a jury, to decide on the nature and effect of the whole evidence introduced in support of the plaintiff's case, part of which is of a presumptive nature, and capable of being urged with more or less effect to the jury. An ejectment ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Lindsey v. Lessee of Miller - 31 U.S. 666 (1832) U.S. Supreme Court Lindsey v. Lessee of Miller, 31 U.S. 6 Pet. 666 666 (1832) Lindsey v. Lessee of Miller 31 U.S. (6 Pet.) 666 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF OHIO Syllabus Ejectment. The plaintiff claimed the land in controversy, which was situated in the Virginia Military District in the State of Ohio under a patent from the United States dated l December, 1824, founded on an entry and survey executed in the same year. The defendants offered in evidence a patent, issued by the State of Virginia, in March, 1789, to Richard C. Anderson for the same land, which was rejected by the court, and they gave in evidence an entry and survey of the land made in January, 1783, recorded on 7 April in the same year, and proved possession for upwards of thirty years. The warrant under which the defendants' survey was made stated that the services for which it issued were performed in the Virginia state line...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
United States v. Arredondo - 31 U.S. 691 (1832) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Arredondo, 31 U.S. 6 Pet. 691 691 (1832) United States v. Arredondo 31 U.S. (6 Pet.) 691 APPEAL FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Syllabus The grant of the King of Spain to F. M. Arredondp and Son for land at Alachua in Florida gave a valid title to these claimants under the grant, according to the stipulations of the Treaty between the United States and Spain of 1819, the laws of nations, of the United States, and of Spain. Construction of the treaty with Spain of 1819 relative to grants of lands in the Territory of Florida and of the several acts of Congress passed for the adjustment of private claims to land within that territory. On 11 November, 1828, Fernando de la Maza Arredondo and son and others, their grantees, filed their petition in the Superior Court of the Eastern District of Florida against the United States under the provision of the sixth section of an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
United States v. Percheman - 32 U.S. 51 (1832) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Percheman, 32 U.S. 7 Pet. 51 51 (1832) United States v. Percheman 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 51 APPEAL FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Syllabus Juan Percheman claimed two thousand acres of land lying in the Territory of Florida by virtue of a grant from the Spanish governor made in 1815. His title consisted of a petition presented by himself to the Governor of East Florida, praying for a grant of two thousand acres at a designated place in pursuance of the royal order of 29 March, 1815, granting lands to the military who were in St. Augustine during the invasion of 1812 and 1813; a decree by the governor made 12 December, 1815, in conformity to the petition, in absolute property, under the authority of the royal order, a certified copy of which decree and of the petition was directed to be issued to him from the secretary's offices in order that it may be to him in all events a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Shaw v. Cooper - 32 U.S. 292 (1833) U.S. Supreme Court Shaw v. Cooper, 32 U.S. 7 Pet. 292 292 (1833) Shaw v. Cooper 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 292 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Syllabus Action for an alleged violation of a patent for an improvement, in guns and firearms. The letters patent were obtained in 1822, and in 1829, the patentee having surrendered the same for an alleged defect in the specification, obtained another patent. This second patent is to be considered as having relation to the emanation of the patent of 1822, and not as having been issued on an original application. The holder of a defective patent may surrender it to the Department of State and obtain a new one, which shall have relation to the emanation of the first. The case of Grant v. Raymond, 6 Pet. 220, cited and affirmed. A second patent granted on the surrender of a prior one being a continuation of the first, the rights of a patentee must be asce...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
United States v. Clarke - 33 U.S. 436 (1834) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Clarke, 33 U.S. 8 Pet. 436 436 (1834) United States v. Clarke 33 U.S. (8 Pet.) 436 APPEAL FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF EAST FLORIDA Syllabus Construction of the articles of the treaty between the United States and Spain ceding Florida, relating to the confirmation of grants of lands made by the Spanish authorities prior to the treaty. An examination of the authority of the Governors of Florida and of other Spanish officers under the Crown of Spain to grant lands within the territory, and of the manner in which that authority was exercised. An examination of the legislation of the United States on the subject of the examination and confirmation of Spanish grants of land in the Territory of Florida, made before the cession of the same to the United States. As the United States is not suable of common right, the party who institutes a suit against it must bring his case within the authority of some ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Caldwell v. Carrington's Heirs - 34 U.S. 86 (1835) U.S. Supreme Court Caldwell v. Carrington's Heirs, 34 U.S. 9 Pet. 86 86 (1835) Caldwell v. Carrington's Heirs 34 U.S. (9 Pet.) 86 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY Syllabus A Bill was filed in the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Kentucky claiming certain lands in Kentucky under an agreement by parol by Carrington with Williams for an exchange of lands, and in which exchange, C., the husband and devisor of the claimant, agreed to give certain lands then owned by him in Virginia to W., and of which W. took possession, and part of which he sold, and for which W. was to convey certain military lands in Kentucky to C. The bill prayed that the heir of W. should be decreed to convey the lands and that certain persons who, knowing of the agreement between C. and W., had purchased from the heir of W. and who had obtained from the heirs of W. the legal title to a part ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Marlatt v. Silk - 36 U.S. 1 (1837) U.S. Supreme Court Marlatt v. Silk, 36 U.S. 11 Pet. 1 1 (1837) Marlatt v. Silk 36 U.S. (11 Pet.) 1 ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA Syllabus Ejectment. A tract of land situated in that part of the State of Pennsylvania which, by the compact with the State of Virginia of 1780, was acknowledged to be within the former state was held under the provisions of an Act of Assembly of Virginia passed in 1779, by which actual bona fide settlers, prior to 1778, were declared to be entitled to the land on which the settlement was made, not exceeding four hundred acres. The settlement was made in 1772. Of this tract, in the year 1786, a survey was made and returned into the Land Office of Pennsylvania, and a patent was granted for the same. The title set up by the defendants in the ejectment was derived from two land warrants from the Land Office of Pennsylvania dated in 1773, under which surveys ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge - 36 U.S. 420 (1837) U.S. Supreme Court Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge, 36 U.S. 11 Pet. 420 420 (1837) Proprietors of Charles River Bridge v. Proprietors of Warren Bridge 36 U.S. (11 Pet.) 420 ERROR TO THE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS Syllabus In 1650, the Legislature of Massachusetts granted to Harvard College the liberty and power to dispose of a ferry by lease or otherwise from Charlestown to Boston, passing over Charles River. The right to set up a ferry between these places had been given by the governor under the authority of the Court of Assistance, by an order dated November 9, 1636, to a particular individual, and was afterwards leased successively to others, they having the privilege of taking tolls regulated in the grant; and when, in 1650, the franchise of this ferry was granted to the college, the rights of the lessees in the same had expired. Under the grant, the college continued to hold the ferry by its le...
Tag this Judgment!