Gleason v. WhiteAnnotate this Case
199 U.S. 54 (1905)
U.S. Supreme Court
Gleason v. White, 199 U.S. 54 (1905)
Gleason v. White
Argued and Submitted March 16-17, 1905
Decided May 29, 1905
199 U.S. 54
ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
Two official surveys of a tract of land bordering on navigable waters were, with an interval of thirty years, duly made, approved, and filed in the Land Department at Washington. By the earlier survey, a fractional section was divided into two lots, by the later into seven. These divisions conflicted. After the later survey, two patents were issued, one using the description in the first and conveying the entire fractional section the other following the second survey and conveying only part of the section. As to a portion of the ground, these patents conflicted. In an action at law in the state court, the second patent prevailed as to the tract in conflict.
Held that, in the absence of findings of fact, there being evidence tending to show that the first patentee took with full knowledge of the two surveys, the later one having been made partly at least at his request, and it also appearing that, by the decision, he received the full number of acres to which he was by the earlier survey entitled and for which he paid, the judgment in favor of the second patentee for the part in conflict ought not to be disturbed.
In 1845, fractional township 53 south, range 42 west, in Dade County, Florida, was surveyed and a plat thereof was approved and filed in the office of the surveyor general in Florida, and also in the office of the Land Department of Washington. By this survey, fractional section 19 was divided into two lots, numbered 1 and 2, containing 164.84 acres. In 1875, a resurvey was made of the township, plats of which were also duly approved and filed in the office of the
surveyor general in Florida and with the Land Department at Washington. By this new survey, said section 19 was divided into 7 lots, containing, in the aggregate, 337.76 acres. The difference between the two surveys of section 19 is shown in the following plats.
On June 24, 1878, a patent was issued to William H. Gleason, on a homestead application, for a tract described as lots 1 and 2 of section 19, containing 164.84 acres, according to the official plat of the survey of 1845. Plaintiff in error, who was plaintiff below, claims by deed from the patentee. On May 4, 1885, lot 5 of section 19, according to the survey in 1875, was patented by the United States to Florida as swamp land, and thereafter deeded by the state to the defendant. In 1898, this
action to recover a part of lot 5 was commenced in the Circuit Court of the Seventh Judicial Circuit of Florida, in and for Dade County. The case was tried by the court without a jury; a judgment rendered for the defendant was affirmed by the supreme court of the state, and thereafter brought to this Court on writ of error. Included in the action was lot 1 of section 19, as shown by the plat of 1875, but, as judgment was rendered for the plaintiff in respect to that tract, it is unnecessary to further refer to it. There was a stipulation as to certain facts, with a provision that testimony of further facts might be received and that the court might view the premises. The findings of the court recite that it viewed the premises, and, upon the stipulated acts and further testimony incorporated in a bill of exceptions, found generally for the defendant as to lot 5.
MR. JUSTICE BREWER delivered the opinion of the Court.
The case was tried by the court without a jury. No special findings of fact having been made, and the proceedings in the trial court having been approved by the supreme court of the state, without an opinion, we must affirm the judgment if there be evidence sufficient to sustain it, although there may be other testimony of a contradictory nature. It is not our province to weigh conflicting testimony in a case coming to us as this does.
It is undoubtedly true that the official surveys of the public lands of the United States are controlling. Stoneroad v. Stoneroad,158 U. S. 240; Russell v. Maxwell Land Grant Co.,158 U. S. 253; United States v. Montana Lumber and Manufacturing Co.,196 U.S. 573; Whitaker v. McBride,197 U. S. 510. Here we have two conflicting official surveys and plats, and, by mistake of the Land Department, two patents have been issued which, in a certain aspect of the surveys and plats, also conflict. It is one of those unfortunate mistakes which sometimes occur and which necessarily throw confusion and doubt upon titles. Since it was discovered, the Land Department has wisely refused to extend the confusion by further patents under the survey of 1875.
The patent to Gleason was three years after the last survey, which, insofar as it conflicted with the prior survey, superseded that and became the official record of the Land Department. Notwithstanding this, the patent purports to convey lots 1 and 2 as shown by the survey of 1845. Undoubtedly the mistake arose because the homestead entry, which must have been five years before the patent, was made before the survey of 1875, and at that time the official record was the plat of 1845, which showed only the two lots. Through carelessness,
and not recognizing the change made by the survey of 1875, the patent refers to the survey of 1845, relying upon the description in the homestead entry. The land patented amounted to 164.84 acres. The homestead law allowed one to enter 160 acres, and, as the patent covered 4.84 acres more than the amount allowed for a homestead, the patentee paid the government price for the excess -- $6.05. The contract of McKay for the survey of 1845 was a contract to survey the exterior lines of township 53, and, while the field notes of the west line of the township are preserved, his notes of the east and subdivision lines are not to be found in the Land Department. The plat, as will be seen, shows an east line running north 2
Official Supreme Court caselaw is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia caselaw is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.