Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jan-01-1832
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
Decided on : Jan-01-1832
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
Decided on : Jan-01-1832
Grant v. Raymond - 31 U.S. 218 (1832) U.S. Supreme Court Grant v. Raymond, 31 U.S. 6 Pet. 218 218 (1832) Grant v. Raymond 31 U.S. (6 Pet.) 218 ON CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION IN OPINION IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Syllabus Action for damages for an infringement of a patent right granted to the plaintiff in 1825. The patent recited that a former patent had been issued in 1821, to the same person for the same improvement "which had been cancelled owing to the defective specification on which the same was granted." The exclusive privilege given by the patent on which the suit was brought is to continue fourteen years from the day on which the original was issued. On the trial, the defendants objected that the Secretary of State had no power, by law, to accept a surrender of and to cancel the first letters patent, or to inquire into and decide upon the causes for so doing, or to grant the second patent for the same invention with an a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jan-01-1832
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
Decided on : Jan-01-1832
Boardman v. Lessees of Reed and Ford - 31 U.S. 328 (1832) U.S. Supreme Court Boardman v. Lessees of Reed and Ford, 31 U.S. 6 Pet. 328 328 (1832) Boardman v. Lessees of Reed and Ford 31 U.S. (6 Pet.) 328 ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Syllabus In an ejectment, a witness was called to prove that a peon who was dead had, at a former trial between the plaintiff and some the defendants to recover the land in controversy, sworn that an anciently marked corner tree was found by him at a particular point of a different kind of timber from that called for in a patent to one Young. No part of the survey of Young was involved in the controversy in this suit, and with several other surveys it was only laid down by the surveyor as by showing certain connections, it might conduce to identify the land claimed by the plaintiffs. As the evidence was not given between the same parties, this testimony could only be received as hearsay, and w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jan-01-1832
Lessee of Sicard v. Davis - 31 U.S. 124 (1832) U.S. Supreme Court Lessee of Sicard v. Davis, 31 U.S. 6 Pet. 124 124 (1832) Lessee of Sicard v. Davis 31 U.S. (6 Pet.) 124 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY Syllabus The act of the Legislature of Kentucky, passed in 1796, respecting conveyances reduces into one all the laws previously existing on the subject of recording conveyances of land. That act does not create a right to convey property which any individual may possess, but restrains that right by certain rules, which it prescribes and which are deemed necessary for public security. The original right to convey property remains unimpaired except so far as it is abridged by that statute. Under that statute, the only requisites to a valid conveyance of lands are that it shall be in writing and shall be sealed and delivered. The acknowledgment and the proof which may authorize the admission of the deed to record and the recording th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jan-01-1832
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
Decided on : Jan-01-1832
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!