Court : US Supreme Court
City of Mobile v. Emanuel - 42 U.S. 95 (1843) U.S. Supreme Court City of Mobile v. Emanuel, 42 U.S. 1 How. 95 95 (1843) City of Mobile v. Emanuel 42 U.S. (1 How.) 95 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ALABAMA Syllabus The case of City of Mobile v. Hallett, 16 Pet. 261, examined and confirmed. Under the exception contained in the Act of Congress of 1824, no title passed to the City of Mobile where the land was in the possession of a party claiming to hold it under a Spanish grant which had been confirmed by the United States. The facts in the case were these: On 26 September, 1807, the Spanish governor of Florida granted to John Forbes a tract of land immediately adjacent to what is now the City of Mobile and indeed constituting a part of it. The grant was founded upon and confirmatory of an older one issued to Richardson in 1767, by the British government, then in possession of the country. The land was upon the west side of the River Mobile. In the document issue...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Porterfield v. Clark - 43 U.S. 76 (1844) U.S. Supreme Court Porterfield v. Clark, 43 U.S. 76 (1844) Porterfield v. Clark 43 U.S. 76 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY Syllabus An Act of the Legislature of Virginia, passed in May, 1779, "establishing a land office and ascertaining the terms and manner of granting waste and unappropriated lands," contained, amongst other exceptions, the following, viz.: Page 43 U. S. 77 no entry or location of land shall be admitted within the country and limits of the Cherokee Indians. The tract of country lying on the west of the Tennessee River was not then the country of the Cherokee Indians, and, of course, not within the exception. A title may be tried in Virginia, Kentucky, and Tennessee as effectually upon a caveat as in any other mode, and the parties, as also those claiming under them, are estopped by the decision. The boundaries of the Cherokees, as fixed by treaties, historically exa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Stoddard v. Chambers - 43 U.S. 284 (1844) U.S. Supreme Court Stoddard v. Chambers, 43 U.S. 2 How. 284 284 (1844) Stoddard v. Chambers 43 U.S. (2 How.) 284 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF MISSOURI Syllabus A deed of land in Missouri, in 1804, attested by two witnesses, purporting to have been executed in the presence of a syndic, presented to the commissioners of united states in 1811 and again brought forward as the foundation of a claim before the commissioners in 1835, must be considered as evidence for a jury. If it was not objected to in the court below, it cannot be in this Court. A confirmation under the act of 1836 to the original claimant and his legal representatives enured, by way of estoppel, to his assignee. Page 43 U. S. 285 To bring a case within the second section of the act of 1836, so as to avoid a confirmation, the opposing location must be shown to have been made "under a law of the United States." The holder of a New...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Ladiga v. Roland - 43 U.S. 581 (1844) U.S. Supreme Court Ladiga v. Roland, 43 U.S. 2 How. 581 581 (1844) Ladiga v. Roland 43 U.S. (2 How.) 581 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ALABAMA Syllabus By a treaty made between the United States and the Creek tribe of Indians, east of the Mississippi River, on 24 March, 1832, it was stipulated. 1. That ninety principal chiefs of the tribe should be allowed to select one section each. Page 43 U. S. 582 2. That every other head of a Creek family should be allowed to select one-half-section each, and that these tracts should be reserved from sale, for their use, for the term of five years, unless sooner disposed of by them. 3. That twenty selections should be made, under the direction of the President, for the orphan children of the Creeks, and divided and retained or sold for their benefit as the President should direct. In making the selections for the orphan children, the President had no authority under the treaty to cho...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Barry v. Gamble - 44 U.S. 32 (1845) U.S. Supreme Court Barry v. Gamble, 44 U.S. 3 How. 32 32 (1845) Barry v. Gamble 44 U.S. (3 How.) 32 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI Syllabus Under the act of 1815, a New Madrid certificate could be located upon lands before they were offered at public sale under a proclamation of the President, or even surveyed by the public surveyor. The act of 1822 recognized locations of this kind, although they disregarded the sectional lines by which the surveys were afterwards made. Under the acts of 1805, 1806, and 1807, it was necessary to file the evidences of an incomplete claim under French or Spanish authority, which bore date anterior to 1 October, 1800, as well as those which were dated subsequent to that day, and in case of neglect, the bar provided in the acts applied to both classes. A title resting on a permit to settle and warrant of survey, dated before 1 October, 1800, without any settlement or survey having been made, was an i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Oliver v. Piatt - 44 U.S. 333 (1845) U.S. Supreme Court Oliver v. Piatt, 44 U.S. 333 (1845) Oliver v. Piatt 44 U.S. 333 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF OHIO Syllabus In cases of trust, where the trustee has violated his trust by an illegal conversion of the trust property, the cestui que trust has a right to follow the property into whosesoever hands he may find it, not being a bona fide purchaser for a valuable consideration, without notice. Where a trustee has, in violation of his trust, invested the trust property or its proceeds in any other property, the cestui que trust has his option either to hold the substituted property liable to the original trust, or to hold the trustee himself personally liable for the breach of the trust. The option, however, belongs to the cestui que trust alone and is for his benefit, and not for the benefit of the trustee. If the trustee, after such an unlawful conversion of the trust property,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Carroll v. Safford - 44 U.S. 441 (1845) U.S. Supreme Court Carroll v. Safford, 44 U.S. 3 How. 441 441 (1845) Carroll v. Safford 44 U.S. (3 How.) 441 ON CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN Syllabus When the purchaser of land from the United States has paid for it and received a final certificate, it is taxable property, according to the statutes of Michigan, although a patent has not yet been issued. Taxation upon lands so held is not a violation of the Ordinance of 1787 as an "interference with the primary disposition of the soil by Congress," nor is it "a tax on the lands of the United States." The State of Michigan could rightfully impose the tax. It was competent for the state to assess and tax such lands at their full value, as the absolute property of the holder of the final certificate, and in default of payment, to sell them as if he owned them in fee. In case of controversy, a court of equity is the proper...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Brown's Lessee v. Clements - 44 U.S. 650 (1845) U.S. Supreme Court Brown's Lessee v. Clements, 44 U.S. 3 How. 650 650 (1845) Brown's Lessee v. Clements 44 U.S. (3 How.) 650 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ALABAMA Syllabus Under the acts of Congress providing for the subdivision of the public lands and the instructions of the Secretary of the Treasury, made under the Act of 24 April, 1820, entitled "An act, making further provision for the sale of the public lands," it is the duty of the Surveyor General to lay out a fractional section in such a manner that an entire quarter-section may be had if the fraction will admit of it. The Surveyor General has no right to divide a fractional section by arbitrary lines so as to prevent a regular quarter-section from being taken up. This was an ejectment brought by the plaintiffs in error to recover 2 40/100 acres of land in the possession of Clements as the tenant of Hunt. The plaintiff claimed title through a patent to Jame...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
United States v. King - 44 U.S. 773 (1845) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. King, 44 U.S. 3 How. 773 773 (1845) United States v. King 44 U.S. (3 How.) 773 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR EAST LOUISIANA Syllabus The certificate of survey alleged to have been given by Trudeau on 14 June, 1797, and brought forward to sustain a grant to the Marquis de Maison Rouge, declared antedated and fraudulent. The circumstance that a copy of this paper was delivered by the Spanish authorities in 1803 is not sufficient to prevent its authenticity from being impeached. Leaving this certificate out of the case, the instruments executed by the Baron de Carondelet in 1795 and 1797 have not the aid of any authentic survey to ascertain and fix the limits of the land, and to determine its location. This Court has repeatedly decided, and in cases too where the instrument contained clear words of grant, that if the description was vague and indefinite, and there was no official survey to give it ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Stimpson v. West Chester Railroad Company - 45 U.S. 380 (1846) U.S. Supreme Court Stimpson v. West Chester Railroad Company, 45 U.S. 4 How. 380 380 (1846) Stimpson v. West Chester Railroad Company 5 U.S. (4 How.) 380 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR EAST PENNSYLVANIA Syllabus The practice of excepting generally to a charge of the court to the jury without setting out specifically the points excepted to censured. The writ of error not dismissed only on account of the peculiar circumstances of the case. Where a defective patent had been surrendered and a new one taken out, and the patentee brought an action for a violation of his patent right, laying the infringement at a date subsequent to that of the renewed patent, proof of the use of the thing patented during the interval between the original and renewed patents will not defeat the action. The seventh section of the Act of March 3, 1839, has exclusive reference to an original application for a patent, an...
Tag this Judgment!