Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jan-01-1850
Surgett v. Lapice - 49 U.S. 48 (1850) U.S. Supreme Court Surgett v. Lapice, 49 U.S. 8 How. 48 48 (1850) Surgett v. Lapice 49 U.S. (8 How.) 48 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA Syllabus Where an "action of jactitation" or "slander of title" was brought in a state court of Louisiana and removed into the circuit court of the United States by the defendant, who was a citizen of Mississippi (the persons who brought the action being in possession of the land under a legal title), and the defendant pleaded in reconvention, setting up an equitable title, and the court below decreed against the defendant, it was proper for him to bring the case to this Court by appeal, and not by writ of error. This case distinguished from that of United States v. King, 3 and 7 How. 44 U. S. 773 and 48 U. S. 844 . Before the transfer of Louisiana to the United States, the Spanish government was accustomed to grant lands fronting on the Mississippi ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jan-01-1850
Menard's Heirs v. Massey - 49 U.S. 293 (1850) U.S. Supreme Court Menard's Heirs v. Massey, 49 U.S. 8 How. 293 293 (1850) Menard's Heirs v. Massey 49 U.S. (8 How.) 293 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF MISSOURI Syllabus In the case of Stoddard v. Chambers, 2 How. 284, this Court decided by implication, and now decides expressly, that a general and unlocated concession, granted by the Spanish governor prior to the transfer of Louisiana, a private survey of which made after the transfer was recognized by the commissioners appointed under the act of 1805, before whom the claim was filed, was so designated and located as to be reserved from sale by virtue of the act of 1811, and consequently no New Madrid certificate could be located upon it. The act of 1804, forbidding private surveys upon the public lands, was impliedly repealed by the act of 1805, which required claimants to file a plat. The act of 1806 authorized the commissioners to direct ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jan-01-1850
Walden v. Bodley's Heirs - 50 U.S. 34 (1850) U.S. Supreme Court Walden v. Bodley's Heirs, 50 U.S. 9 How. 34 34 (1850) Walden v. Bodley's Heirs 50 U.S. (9 How.) 34 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY Syllabus This Court having sent a mandate to a circuit court to put a party into possession of certain lands which were the subject of an ejectment suit, it was right in the circuit court not to extend the possession further than the land originally recovered in ejectment, although other lands were afterwards drawn into the controversy. Where a defendant in ejectment aliens the property in dispute whilst the proceedings are pending, a possession by the vendee will not justify a plea of the statute of limitations. This Court having issued an order, after the expiration of the demise, that the circuit court should place the plaintiff in possession, such an order proceeded on principles governing a court of equity, and the circuit court was...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jan-01-1850
La Roche v. Jones - 50 U.S. 155 (1850) U.S. Supreme Court La Roche v. Jones, 50 U.S. 9 How. 155 155 (1850) La Roche v. Jones 50 U.S. (9 How.) 155 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI Syllabus After the cession by Georgia to the United States, in 1802, of all the territory north of 31 north latitude and west of the Chatahoochee River, Congress passed an act, 2 Stat. 229 confirming certain titles derived from the British or Spanish governments and appointing commissioners to hear and decide upon such claims, whose decision was declared to be final. In 1812, another act was passed, 2 Stat. 765, confirming the title of those who were actual residents on 27 October, 1795, and whose claims had been filed with the register and reported to Congress. Page 50 U. S. 156 A grant of land on the north side of latitude 31, issued in 1789 by the Governor General of Louisiana and West Florida was void because the United States owned all th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jan-01-1850
Lytle v. Arkansas - 50 U.S. 314 (1850) U.S. Supreme Court Lytle v. Arkansas, 50 U.S. 9 How. 314 314 (1850) Lytle v. Arkansas 50 U.S. (9 How.) 314 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ARKANSAS Syllabus The Preemption Act of May 29, 1830, conferred certain rights upon settlers upon the public lands, upon proof of settlement or improvement being made to the satisfaction Page 50 U. S. 315 of the register and receiver, agreeably to the rules prescribed by the Commissioner of the General Land Office. The Commissioner directed the proof to be taken before the register and receiver, and afterwards directed them to file the proof where it should establish to their entire satisfaction the rights of the parties. Where the proof was taken in presence of the register only, but both officers decided in favor of the claim, and the money paid by the claimant was received by the Commissioner, this was sufficient. The Commissioner had power to make the regulation, and power also to di...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jan-01-1850
Doe v. Eslava - 50 U.S. 421 (1850) U.S. Supreme Court Doe v. Eslava, 50 U.S. 9 How. 421 421 (1850) Doe v. Eslava 50 U.S. (9 How.) 421 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA Syllabus There were two conflicting claims to land in that part of Louisiana west of the Perdido River, one founded upon a French grant in 1757, with possession continuing down to 1787, the other founded upon a Spanish grant in 1788, with possession continuing down to 1819. Both these claims were confirmed by Congress. In an ejectment suit where the titles were in conflict, the state court instructed the jury that the confirmations balanced each other, and they must look to other evidences of title in order to settle the rights of the parties. The judgment of the court being ultimately in favor of the party who claimed under the Spanish grant, this Court will not, under the circumstances of the case, disturb that judgment. The fifth section of the Act of Congress passed on 8 May, 1822, giving certain pow...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jan-01-1850
Doe v. City of Mobile - 50 U.S. 451 (1850) U.S. Supreme Court Doe v. City of Mobile, 50 U.S. 9 How. 451 451 (1850) Doe v. City of Mobile 50 U.S. (9 How.) 451 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA Syllabus Under the two acts of Congress passed on 8 May, 1822, 4 Stat. 700 and 708, the register and receiver of the land office were not empowered to settle conflicting titles but only conflicting locations. In this case, they did not describe a boundary line by visible objects, but called to bound upon another line. The authority given to these officers was to be exercised only in cases of imperfect grants, confirmed by the act of Congress, and not cases of perfect title. In these they had no authority to act. Hence, where a state court left the question of location to be settled by a jury, this Court will not disturb the judgment of the state court founded upon such finding. This was a branch of the preceding case of the same plaintiff against Eslava. In the statement of that c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jan-01-1850
Gilmer v. Poindexter - 51 U.S. 257 (1850) U.S. Supreme Court Gilmer v. Poindexter, 51 U.S. 10 How. 257 257 (1850) Gilmer v. Poindexter 51 U.S. (10 How.) 257 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA Syllabus On 30 January, 1835, Poindexter purchased from Thomas a right of entry in certain lands in Louisiana, with authority to locate the lands in the name of Thomas, and they were so located. Subsequently to such location, viz., on the right which Thomas then had, or thereafter might have, to the land so located, and authorized Poindexter to obtain a patent in his own name. The patent, however, was issued to Thomas, and not to Poindexter. This did not vest in Poindexter a legal title, which would enable him to recover in a petitory action, which corresponds with an action of ejectment. Poindexter did not take a legal title, either by direct conveyance or by estoppel. On 20 November, 1835, Poindexter, by a conveyance of record, conveyed hi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jan-01-1850
Stimpson v. Baltimore & Susquehanna R. Co. - 51 U.S. 329 (1850) U.S. Supreme Court Stimpson v. Baltimore & Susquehanna R. Co., 51 U.S. 10 How. 329 329 (1850) Stimpson v. Baltimore & Susquehanna Railroad Company 51 U.S. (10 How.) 329 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND Syllabus Stimpson's patent "for an improvement for the purpose of carrying railroads through the streets of towns or in other situations where it may be desirable that the wheels of ordinary carriages should not be subjected to injury or obstruction" decided to be a combination or application of means already known and in use, and not to be original as to the invention or discovery of those means. That the mode given by him for the application of those means and the objects proposed thereby differ materially from the apparatus used by the Baltimore & Susquehanna Railroad Company for turning the corners of streets. The latter therefore is no infringement of Stimpson's pa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jan-01-1850
League v. De Young - 52 U.S. 185 (1850) U.S. Supreme Court League v. De Young, 52 U.S. 11 How. 185 185 (1850) League v. De Young 52 U.S. (11 How.) 185 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS Syllabus Before the admission of Texas into the Union, that state passed many laws upon the subject of head rights to land, the general object of which was to ascertain and secure valid titles and prevent frauds by acts of limitation and by the establishment of boards of commissioners to separate the bad from the good titles. In the constitution adopted just before her admission into the Union, there was an article annulling fraudulent certificates, and opening the courts up to a certain day to suitors for the investigation of their claims. It was perfectly competent for the people of Texas to pass these laws and adopt this constitution. Moreover, they were all passed before the Constitution of the United States had any operation over Texas, and cannot therefore be in conflict with any of i...
Tag this Judgment!