The decision in the two preceding cases again affirmed.
The parties were the same as in the two preceding cases.
Joseph Hughes filed his petition on 16 June, 1846, claiming
3,200 arpents of land as having been granted by the Governor of
Louisiana, Gayoso, on the 26th April, 1798, to Andre Martin. He
alleges that said Martin took immediate possession, and held it
till his death. That in the year 1840, the board of commissioners
reported favorably on said claim, but that Congress had never acted
upon it, and that he will on the trial produce good and legal sales
and transfers of the said tract of land from the heirs of the said
Martin to himself.
The answer put in on the part of the United States consists of a
general denial of the statements in the petition.
The evidences of title exhibited on the part of the petitioner
were:
1st. The petition of Andre Martin to the governor for a grant of
3,200 arpents &c., dated March 28, 1798.
Page 54 U. S. 8
2d. The concession and order of survey made by Governor Gayoso
and dated 26 April, 1798.
3d. The sales and deeds of conveyance by the heirs of Andre
Martin under which the petitioner Hughes claims, dated respectively
13 and 14 July, 1848.
Testimony was offered to prove the genuineness of Gayoso's
signature to the order of survey.
The district court decided in favor of the petitioner and the
United States appealed.
MR. JUSTICE NELSON delivered the opinion of the Court.
The plaintiff claimed three thousand arpents of land situate in
Louisiana, and fronting on the back part of lands of Oliver
Thibodeaux, Theodore Thibodeaux, and Claude Martin under a
concession to Andre Martin from Governor Gayoso, 26 April, 1798.
The proceedings were under the Act of 17 June, 1844, reviving the
Act of 26 May, 1824.
Evidence was given of the handwriting of Martin to the
application for the land, and of Governor Gayoso to the
concession.
The plaintiff also produced evidence of a conveyance of the
premises to himself by an instrument bearing date 14 July 1848,
purporting to have been executed by the heirs of Andre Martin the
original grantee. And also notice to the register and receiver of
the land office at Opelousas, Louisiana, of an application on
behalf of the heirs by their attorney for confirmation of the grant
under date of 23 December, 1836.
The concession was an inchoate and incomplete grant, and there
is no evidence that any possession was ever taken of the land, nor
of any claim set up under the grant to the same, from its date down
to 1836, when notice was given to the officers of the land office,
nor any evidence of the existence of the grant during the whole of
this period. The case falls directly within the principles of the
two previous cases just decided.
There is also no proof of any title in the plaintiff derived
from the original grantee. The conveyance purporting to be executed
by the heirs, notwithstanding the recitals to that effect,
furnishes no evidence of the fact of heirship.
We think the decree of the court below erroneous, and should
be
Reversed, and that the proceedings be remitted to the court
below and the petition be dismissed.
Page 54 U. S. 9
Order
This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record
from the District Court of the United States for the Eastern
District of Louisiana, and was argued by counsel. On consideration
whereof, it is now here ordered, adjudged, and decreed by this
Court that the decree of the said district court in this cause be
and the same is hereby reversed and annulled, and this cause be and
the same is hereby remanded to the said district court with
directions to dismiss the petition of the claimant.
