Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
USA Constitution Annotated
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Online Case Law
Cornell LII
FastCase $
Lexis $
LexisOne
Loislaw $
USSCPlus.com $
VersusLaw $
Link to the Case Preview: http://supreme.justia.com/us/31/261/
Link to the Full Text of Case: http://supreme.justia.com/us/31/261/case.html
U.S. Supreme Court
McDonald's Heirs v. Smalley, 31 U.S. 6 Pet. 261 261 (1832)
McDonald's Heirs v. Smalley
31 U.S. (6 Pet.) 261
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE
UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF OHIO
Syllabus
The plaintiffs entry of land in Ohio was made in the name of a person who was dead at the time of the entry. This entry is a nullity in the State of Ohio.
The case of Galt v. Galloway, 4 Pet. 332, cited and confirmed.
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL delivered the opinion of the Court.
This suit was brought in the Court of the United States for the Seventh Circuit and District of Ohio to obtain a conveyance for land which the defendants hold by a senior patent, and which the plaintiffs claim under a prior entry. The bill was dismissed by the circuit court, and the plaintiffs have appealed to this Court.
Serious doubts exist respecting the validity of the entry under which the claim has been made, and several points have been discussed at the bar. It is unnecessary to decide more than one of these questions, because that is decisive of the case. David Anderson, in whose name the entry under which the plaintiffs claim was made, was dead at the time. The entry therefore as was determined in @ 29 U. S. 345, is, in the State of Ohio, a nullity. This being the foundation of the plaintiffs' title, they must fail in their action.
Counsel at the bar have endeavored to distinguish this case from that, by treating the entry as one made in the name of the wrong person, through the mistake of the surveyor.
We do not think he is sustained by the fact or the law of the case. The decree is
Affirmed with costs.
