Court : US Supreme Court
United States v. Seaman - 58 U.S. 225 (1854) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Seaman, 58 U.S. 17 How. 225 225 (1854) United States v. Seaman 58 U.S. (17 How.) 225 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Syllabus By the Act of Congress passed on the 26th of August, 1852, ch. 91, it was made the duty of the superintendent of public printing to receive all matter ordered by Congress to be printed and to deliver it to the public printer or printers. In 1854, Beverly Tucker was printer to the Senate, and O. A. P. Nicholson, printer to the House of Representatives. The act further provided that when any document should be ordered to be printed by both Houses of Congress, the entire printing of such document should be done by the printer of that House which first ordered the printing. In January, 1854, the Commissioner of Patents communicated to the Senate that portion of his Annual Report for 1853, which related to arts and manufactures, an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
West v. Cochran - 58 U.S. 403 (1854) U.S. Supreme Court West v. Cochran, 58 U.S. 17 How. 403 403 (1854) West v. Cochran * 58 U.S. (17 How.) 403 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF MISSOURI Syllabus The Act of Congress passed on the 3d of March, 1807, 2 Stat. 442, appointing commissioners to adjudicate land claims against the United States, required that where titles to tracts of land which had not been previously surveyed were confirmed by the board, they should be surveyed under the directions of the Surveyor General. When a certificate and plat should be filed in the proper office, a patent certificate was to issue which should entitle the claimant to a patent from the United States. Therefore, where conflicting locations were claimed of two concessions granted by the Lieutenant Governor of Upper Louisiana, and no survey satisfactory to the public officers was made until 1852, when a patent was issued in conformity with a survey directed by ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Stevens v. Gladding - 58 U.S. 447 (1854) U.S. Supreme Court Stevens v. Gladding, 58 U.S. 17 How. 447 447 (1854) 58 U.S. (17 How.) 447 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND Syllabus Whether patent rights and copyrights held under the laws of the United States are subject to seizure and sale on execution is a question upon which the Court does not express an opinion in the present case. Page 58 U. S. 448 The seizure and sale under execution of "one copperplate for the map of the State of Rhode Island" did not carry with it the right to print and publish the map. It is distinguishable from a voluntary sale of a plate by the owner thereof. The ownership of a plate and the ownership of the copyright are distinct species of property, and the plate may be used without infringing upon the copyright of printing and publishing the map. . But the penalties imposed by the 7th section of the Act of Congress passed on the 3d of February, 183...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Barnard v. Ashley - 59 U.S. 43 (1855) U.S. Supreme Court Barnard v. Ashley, 59 U.S. 18 How. 43 43 (1855) Barnard v. Ashley 59 U.S. (18 How.) 43 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Syllabus The Act of congress passed on the 4th of July, 1836, 5 Stat. 107, provided for a direct supervision by the Commissioner of the General Land Office over registers and receivers of the land offices, and therefore their judgment is not conclusive in a case where additional proceedings were had before them in 1837. The cases of Wilcox v. Jackson, 13 Pet. 511, and Lytle v. Arkansas, 9 How. 333, commented on and explained. Where a survey was approved on June 4, 1834, a selection made, under the authority of congress, by Governor Pope on June 6, 1834, the lands thus selected were not open to preemptions under the act of June 19, 1834. Where there was an erroneous survey, a selection of a section did not attach until a correct survey was re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Ham v. Missouri - 59 U.S. 126 (1855) U.S. Supreme Court Ham v. Missouri, 59 U.S. 18 How. 126 126 (1855) Ham v. Missouri 59 U.S. (18 How.) 126 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSOURI Syllabus The Act of congress passed on the 6th of March, 1820, 3 Stat. 547, accepted by an ordinance declaring the assent of the people of Missouri thereto, adopted on the 19th of July, 1820, granted to the state for the use of schools the sixteenth section of every township in the state, which had not been sold or otherwise disposed of. This expression, "otherwise disposed of," does not include the case of an imperfect title claimed to be derived from the Spanish governor which had been rejected by the board of commissioners in 1811. The claim was confirmed in 1828 so far as to relinquish all the title which the United States then had, but at that time the United states had no title, having granted the land to Missouri in 1820, which they had a right to do. The proviso in the Act of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Cooper v. Roberts - 59 U.S. 173 (1855) U.S. Supreme Court Cooper v. Roberts, 59 U.S. 18 How. 173 173 (1855) Cooper v. Roberts 59 U.S. (18 How.) 173 ERROR FOR THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN Syllabus It has always been a cherished policy with the government of the United States to appropriate the section numbered sixteen in every township of land for the use of schools. Reservations were made in the sale of other lands which contained salt springs or lead mines, but not in the appropriation of section sixteen for schools. When the State of Michigan was admitted into the Union, it was upon the condition that every section numbered sixteen in every township of the public lands, and where such section has been sold or otherwise disposed of, other lands equivalent thereto, and as contiguous as may be, shall be granted to the state for the use of schools. When the lands are surveyed and marked out, the title of the state attaches to No. 16, and...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Willot v. Sandford - 60 U.S. 79 (1856) U.S. Supreme Court Willot v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 19 How. 79 79 (1856) Willot v. Sandford 60 U.S. (19 How.) 79 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF MISSOURI Syllabus Where there are two confirmations by Congress of the same land in Missouri, the elder confirmation gives the better title, and the jury are not at liberty, in an action of ejectment, to find that the survey and patent did not correspond with the confirmation. Titles to lands thus situated could be confirmed; nor were the lands affected by the act of March 3, 1811, providing for the sale of public lands and the final adjustment of land claims. Page 60 U. S. 80 This was an action of ejectment brought by Sandford a citizen of New York, to recover the following-described premises, viz.: "A certain tract of land, containing 750 arpens, more or less, which was claimed by one Antoine Lamarche, as derived to him from the government of Spain, was surve...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Buttz v. Northern Pacific Railroad - 119 U.S. 55 (1856) U.S. Supreme Court Buttz v. Northern Pacific Railroad, 119 U.S. 55 (1886) Buttz v. Northern Pacific Railroad Argued October 26-27, 1886 Decided November 15, 1856 119 U.S. 55 APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE TERRITORY OF DAKOTA Syllabus The grant by the Act of Congress of July 2, 1864, to the Northern Pacific Railroad Company of lands to which the Indian title had not been extinguished operated to convey the fee to the company, subject to the right of occupancy by the Indians. The manner, time, and conditions of extinguishing such right of occupancy were exclusively matters for the consideration of the government, and could not be interfered with nor put in contest by private parties. The agreement of the Sisseton and Wahpeton bands of Dakota or Sioux Indians for the relinquishment of their title was accepted on the part of the United States when it was approved by the Secretary of the Interior on the 19th of June,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Doswell v. De La Lanza - 61 U.S. 29 (1857) U.S. Supreme Court Doswell v. De La Lanza, 61 U.S. 20 How. 29 29 (1857) Doswell v. De La Lanza 61 U.S. (20 How.) 29 ERROR FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF TEXAS Syllabus This Court again decides, as in former cases, that a refusal of the court below to grant a new trial is not a proper subject for a bill of exception. In an action of ejectment, where the defendant pleads the statute of limitations, he must connect his own possession with the adverse possession and title of another person which is set up as a defense. Otherwise, the plea is not good. Under the decisions of the courts of Texas, a survey made of land beyond the limits of the surveyor's district, although invalid at the time, is rendered good by the subsequent approval of the proper county surveyor. This Court adopts the rule. The case is stated in the opinion of the Court. MR. JUSTICE McLEAN delivered the opinion of the Court. In his ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Roberts v. Cooper - 61 U.S. 467 (1857) U.S. Supreme Court Roberts v. Cooper, 61 U.S. 20 How. 467 467 (1857) Roberts v. Cooper 61 U.S. (20 How.) 467 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN Syllabus This Court again decides that after a case has been brought here and decided and a mandate issued to the court below, if a second writ of error is sued out, it brings up for revision nothing but the proceedings subsequent to the mandate. The deposition of an officer of the General Land Office as to the opinions and practice prevailing in that office cannot be read to the jury as proof of the law, although it might have influence with the court in explaining the law to the jury. The ancient English doctrines respecting maintenance or champerty have not found favor in the United States, and in Michigan where the land lies which is involved in the present controversy, its application to sales by one out of possession has been annulled. Although in...
Tag this Judgment!