Page images
PDF
EPUB

sion had been against him.' But where it appeared that at the trial in the state court, the plaintiff in error claimed the land in dispute under an authority which he alleged had been exercised by the Secretary of the Treasury in behalf of the United States, and the decision was against the validity of the authority thus alleged to have been exercised; it was held to be a proper case for a writ of error. So, too, where the decision of a state court is in favor of the validity of a state statute, which is alleged to be repugnant to the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States, the party against whom such a decision is made may have it revised in the Supreme Court of the United States, by writ of error;3 but if the decision of the state court is against the validity of the statute, on the ground that it is repugnant to the Constitution of the United States, a writ of error does not lie."

279. It has been previously stated, that in order to give the Supreme Court jurisdiction, under the 25th section of the Judiciary Act, it must appear on the record itself to be one of the cases enumerated in that section; and nothing out of the record can be taken into consideration. Various modes have been pointed out, in which this may appear by the record. It may be shown, first, either by express averment, or by a necessary intendment in the pleadings in the case; or secondly, by the direction given by the court, and stated in the exception; or thirdly, when the proceeding is according to the law of Louisiana by the statement of facts, and of the decision as usually made in such cases by the court; or fourthly, it must be entered on the proceedings of

1 Strader v. Baldwin, 9 Howard's Rep. 261. Promises alleged to have been made by the bankrupt after his discharge are not the subject of jurisdiction under the 25th section: Linton v. Stanton, 12 Howard, 423. Neilson v. Lagow, 7 Howard, 772.

3 Briscoe v. The Commonwealth Bank, 11 Peters, 257.

Walker v. Taylor, 5 Howard, 64; The Commonwealth Bank of Kentucky v. Griffith, 14 Peters, 56.

the appellate court in cases where the record shows that such a point may have arisen and been decided, that it was in fact raised and decided; and this entry must appear to have been made by order of the court, or by the presiding judge, by order of the court, and certified by the clerk, as a part of the record in the state court. Fifthly, in proceedings in equity, it may be stated in the body of the final decree of the state court. Sixthly, it must appear from the record that the question was necessarily involved in the decision, and that the state court could not have given the judgment or decree which they passed, without deciding it.' But it has never been held, that the record of the proceedings of the highest court must state in terms a misconstruction by that court, of the Act of Congress. It is enough that it is an inference of law, from the inspection of the whole record, that the highest court did thus misconstrue an Act of Congress, and annul a right or title otherwise valid, by reason of such misconstruction. The Supreme Court is not confined to an inspection of that part of the record which sets out the proceedings of the highest court alone; but may look at the record of the proceedings of the inferior state court, in connexion with the proceedings of the highest court, in order to deduce therefrom the points decided by the latter. As, when the grounds of the decision of the highest court of the state are not stated in the record, the Supreme Court will look into the bill of exceptions, taken in the court of original jurisdiction, to see what points were carried up to the highest court, and whether they were necessarily involved in its judgment.2

1 Armstrong v. The Treasurer of Athens County, 16 Peters, 281, 285. Neilson v. Lagow, 12 Howard, 98.

CHAPTER V.

THE SPECIAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION OF THE SUPREME COURT, IN FLORIDA, LOUISIANA, AND CALIFORNIA LAND CLAIMS.

§ 280. THERE is a peculiar system of jurisprudence, of a mixed character, resulting from the rules of determination which have been prescribed to the courts of the United States by various Acts of Congress, passed from time to time for the adjudication and settlement of private land claims, growing out of the grants of other governments, which have ceded certain territories to the United States.

§ 281. Thus, by the treaty of February 22d, 1819, Spain ceded to the United States the territories of East and West Florida. The second article of this treaty was in these words: "His Catholic Majesty cedes to the United States, in full property and sovereignty, all the territories which belong to him, situated to the eastward of the Mississippi, known by the name of East and West Florida. The adjacent islands dependent on said provinces, all public lots and squares, vacant lands, public edifices, fortifications, barracks, and other buildings, which are not private property, archives and documents, which relate directly to the property and sovereignty of said provinces, are included in this article. The said archives and documents shall be left in possession of the commissioners or officers of the United States, duly authorized to receive them."

18 Stat. at Large, 254.

§ 282. The eighth article of the treaty was as follows:"That all grants of land made before the 24th of January, 1818, by the King of Spain, or by his lawful authorities, in those territories, shall be1 ratified and confirmed to the persons in possession of the lands, to the same extent that the same grants would be valid if the territories had remained under the dominion of his Catholic Majesty. But the owners in possession of such lands, who, by reason of the recent circumstances of the Spanish nation, and the revolutions in Europe, have been prevented from fulfilling the conditions of their grants, shall complete the same within the terms. limited in the same, respectively, from the date of this treaty; in default of which the said grants shall be null and void. All grants made since the said 24th of January, 1818, when the first proposal, on the part of his Catholic Majesty, for the cession of Florida, was made, are hereby declared, and agreed to be, null and void."

3

§ 283. By an act passed March 23d, 1823, certain commissioners were appointed to receive and adjust the land claims of the inhabitants of the ceded territory, and to report the same to the Secretary of the Treasury. By another act, passed February 8th, 1827, further provisions were made on the same subject. By a subsequent act, passed May 23d, 1828 (§ 6), it was provided, "That all claims to land within the territory of Florida, embraced by the treaty, &c., which shall not be decided and finally settled under the foregoing provisions of this act, containing a greater quantity of land than the commissioners were authorized to decide, and above the amount confirmed by this act, and which have not been reported as antedated or forged, by said commissioners, or register and receiver acting as such, shall be received and adjudicated, by the judge of the superior court of the district within which the land lies, upon the petition of the claimant,

For the construction of this expression, see post, 286. 33 Stat. at Large, 768.

28 Stat. at Large, 258.

4 Stat. at Large, 202.

according to the forms, rules, regulations, conditions, restrictions, and limitations prescribed to the district judge, and claimants in the State of Missouri, by Act of Congress, approved May 26th, 1824, entitled, "An act, enabling the claimants to lands within the limits of the State of Missouri and Territory of Arkansas, to institute proceedings to try the validity of their claims." By a proviso, all claims annulled by the treaty, and all claims not presented to the commissioners, according to the Acts of Congress, were excluded.' The 7th section of the act gave the claimants an appeal from the decision of the district judge to the Supreme Court of the United States, according to the directions of the Act of May 26th, 1824; the 9th section gave an appeal by the United States, and the 10th section made the United States a party to the proceedings.2 Finally, by an act passed May 26th, 1830, it was directed that "all the remaining claims, which have been presented according to law and not finally acted upon, shall be adjudicated and finally settled upon the same conditions, restrictions, and limitations, in every respect," as were prescribed by the Act of May 23d, 1828.3

§ 284. It is necessary now to turn to the act passed to carry into effect the treaty with France of April 30th, 1803, by which Louisiana was ceded to the United States, in order to see the rules of determination established for the adjudication of claims of this description. By the treaty of St. Ildefonso, October 1st, 1800, Spain ceded the province of Louisiana to France, and by the treaty of April 30th, 1803, France ceded the same to the United States. By the third article of the latter treaty, it was stipulated that the inhabitants, until received to the full rights of citizens of the United States, should be maintained and protected in the free enjoy

14 Stat. at Large, 284, 285, 286.

2 Ibid.

3 By an act passed February 22d, 1847, all the cases pending in the territorial courts were transferred to the District Court of the United States, for the District of Florida, 9 Stat. at Large, 128.

« PreviousContinue »