Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jan-01-1860
Hall v. Papin - 65 U.S. 132 (1860) U.S. Supreme Court Hall v. Papin, 65 U.S. 24 How. 132 132 (1860) Hall v. Papin 65 U.S. (24 How.) 132 ERROR FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS Syllabus An Act of Congress passed on the 15th of May, 1829, 3 Stat. 605, authorizes persons who claim lots in the Village of Peoria, in Illinois, to notify the register of the land office, who was directed to report to the Secretary of the Treasury, to be laid by him before Congress. An Act of March 3, 1823, 3 Stat. 786, grants to each one of the settlers who had settled on a lot prior to the 1st of January, 1813, the lot so settled on and improved, where the same shall not exceed two acres, and where the same shall exceed two acres, every such claimant shall be confirmed in a quantity not exceeding ten acres, provided the right of any other person derived from the United States, or any other source whatever &c.;, shall not be affected. These two statu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jan-01-1860
Gregg v. Forsyth - 65 U.S. 179 (1860) U.S. Supreme Court Gregg v. Forsyth, 65 U.S. 24 How. 179 179 (1860) Gregg v. Forsyth 65 U.S. (24 How.) 179 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS Syllabus The possession of Ballance in the fractional quarter section of land spoken of in the preceding report of the case of Meehan and Ballance v. Forsyth, so as to entitle him to the benefit of the statute of limitations, need not have been by himself personally, but possession by a tenant under him enured to his benefit. The circumstance that Ballance had laid out the land into lots and blocks did not make it necessary for him to reside upon every lot. The law only required him to possess and reside upon the premises claimed by his title papers. The volumes of American State Papers, Public Lands, three of which were published by Duff Green, under the revision of the Secretary of the Senate, by order of the Senate, contain authentic papers wh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jan-01-1860
McEwen v. Den - 65 U.S. 242 (1860) U.S. Supreme Court McEwen v. Den, 65 U.S. 24 How. 242 242 (1860) McEwen v. Den 65 U.S. (24 How.) 242 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE Syllabus By the laws of Tennessee anterior to 1856, a deed for lands lying in Tennessee could not be acknowledged or proven in another state before the clerk of a court. In 1856, a law was passed allowing this to be done. This statute was prospective. The circumstance that the law of 1856 was called an amendment of the prior law does not change this view of the subject. Where a deed was acknowledged in 1839, before the clerk of a court in another state, a copy of it from the record was improperly allowed to be read in evidence to the jury. Where the defendant claimed under the statute of limitations and showed possession of Evans' coal bank, the validity of this plea will depend upon the fact whether or not Evans' coal bank is within the lines of the plai...
Tag this Judgment!