Where a party claiming title to lands under an act of Congress
brought a bill for a conveyance, and stated several equitable
circumstances in aid of his title, and, the state court where the
suit was brought having dismissed the bill and the cause being
brought to this Court by appeal under the twenty-fifth section of
the Judiciary Act of 1789, c. 20, upon the ground of an alleged
misconstruction of the act of Congress by the state court,
held that this Court could not take into consideration any
distinct equity arising out of the contracts or transactions of the
parties and creating a new and independent title, but was confined
to an examination of the plaintiff's title as depending upon the
construction of the act of Congress.
The lands included within the Zanesville District by the Act of
Congress of 3 March 1803, c. 343, s. 6, could not, after that date,
be sold at the Marietta Land Office.
A statute for the commencement of which no time is fixed
commences from its date. The decision of this Court in
Matthews v.
Zane, 5 Cranch 92, revised and confirmed.
The bill filed by the plaintiff, Matthews in the state court was
brought for the purpose of obtaining from the defendants, Zane and
others, a conveyance of a tract of land to which the plaintiff
alleged that he had the equitable title under an entry prior to
that on which a grant had been issued to the defendants.
Page 20 U. S. 165
The validity of his entry descended on the construction of the
Act of Congress of May 19, 1800, c. 209., the 6th section of the
Act of March 3, 1803, c. 343., and the Act of 26 March, 1804, c.
388, all relating to the sale of the public lands in the territory
northwest of the River Ohio. The case stated that on 7 February,
1814, the plaintiff applied to the register of the Marietta
District and communicated to him his desire to purchase the land in
controversy. The office of receiver being then vacant, no money was
paid, and no entry was made; but the register took a note or
memorandum of the application. On 12 May, 1804, soon after the
receiver had entered on the duties of his office, the plaintiff
paid the sum of money required by law and made an entry for the
land in controversy with the register of the Marietta District. In
pursuance of the 12th section of the Act of 26 March, 1804, c. 388,
and of instructions from the Secretary of the Treasury, the sale of
the lands in the District of Zanesville (which had been formed out
of the Marietta District and included the land in controversy)
commenced on the 3d Monday of May, 1804, and on the 21st of that
month the defendants became the purchasers of the same land. There
were several charges of fraud in the bill, and a contract between
the parties was alleged, but as the opinion of this Court turned
exclusively on the title of the parties under the act of Congress,
it is deemed unnecessary to state these circumstances. The state
court having determined against the validity of the plaintiff's
title under the act of Congress, and dismissed his bill, the cause
was brought by appeal to this Court.
Page 20 U. S. 202
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL delivered the opinion of the
Court.
This suit was brought in the state court of Ohio for the purpose
of obtaining a conveyance of a tract of land to which the
complainant supposed himself to have the equitable title, founded
on an entry prior to that on which a grant had been issued to the
defendants. The state court decreed that the bill should be
dismissed and that decree is now before
Page 20 U. S. 203
this Court on the allegation that the court of the state has
misconstrued an act of Congress.
The plaintiff has stated several equitable circumstances in aid
of the title given by his entry, but unless his entry be in itself
valid, there can have been no misconstruction of an act of Congress
in dismissing the bill, and this Court cannot take into
consideration any distinct equity arising out of the contracts and
transactions of the parties and creating a new and independent
title.
The validity of the plaintiff's entry depends on the land laws
of the United States.
In May, 1800, Congress passed an act dividing an extensive
territory northwest of the River Ohio into four districts and
establishing a land office in each for the sale of the public lands
within that district. This act prescribes the time, place, and
manner in which the lands of each district shall be offered at
public sale, and directs also the manner and terms in which those
not sold at public sale may be disposed of at private sale. The
lands of the district comprehending the tract in controversy were
to be offered for public sale at Marietta on the last Monday of
May, 1801.
On 3 March, 1803, Congress passed an act the 6th section of
which creates a fifth district and enacts that the lands contained
within it
"shall be offered for sale at Zanesville under the direction of
a register of the land office and receiver of public moneys, to be
appointed for that purpose, who shall reside at that place."
This district includes the land in controversy.
Page 20 U. S. 204
On 26 March, 1804, Congress passed an act entitled "an act
making provision for the disposal of the public lands in the
Indiana territory and for other purposes."
This act comprehends the lands directed to be sold under the act
of 1800 and 1803, as well as the lands in Indiana.
The 5th section enacts that
"All the lands aforesaid [except certain enumerated tracts, of
which the land in controversy forms no part] be offered for sale to
the highest bidder under the direction of the Surveyor General or
Governor of the Indiana Territory, of the register of the land
office, and of the receiver of public moneys at the places
respectively where the land offices are kept, and on such day or
days as shall, by a public proclamation of the President of the
United States, be designated for that purpose."
On 7 February, 1804, Matthews applied to the register of the
Marietta District and communicated to him his desire to purchase
the land in controversy. The office of receiver being then vacant,
no money was paid and no entry was made, but the register took a
note or memorandum of the application.
The counsel for the plaintiff insists that the title of his
client commences with this application.
The law authorizes the respective registers to sell at private
sale all the lands which may remain unsold at the public sales, and
says the sales
"shall be made in the following manner, and under the following
conditions, to-wit: "
Page 20 U. S. 205
"1. At the time of purchase, every purchaser shall, exclusively
of the fees hereafter mentioned, pay six dollars for every section,
and three dollars for every half section he may have purchased, for
surveying expenses; and deposit one-twentieth part of the amount of
purchase money, to be forfeited if within forty days one-fourth
part of the purchase money, including the said twentieth part, is
not paid."
The payment of the money required by the act is obviously
indispensable to the purchase. Without such payment, the sale
prescribed by law could not be made, and certainly no sale, had the
register attempted to make one, could be valid if made in
opposition to the law. But the register has not attempted to sell,
nor could Mr. Matthews have so understood the transaction. He took
a note of the land the plaintiff intended to purchase, and, had the
receipt of the receiver been produced, might perhaps have made the
entry. In so doing, he would have acted in the double character of
register and agent of the purchaser.
That there was no receiver was undoubtedly not the fault of Mr.
Matthews, but this circumstance as completely suspended the power
of selling land in the Marietta District as if there had been
neither register nor receiver -- as if there had been no land
office.
The transactions then between Mr. Matthews and the register on 9
February, 1804, may be put entirely out of the case.
On 12 May, 1804, soon after the receiver
Page 20 U. S. 206
had entered on the duties of his office, Matthews paid the sum
of money required by law and made an entry for the land in
controversy with the register of the Marietta District. The 12th
section of the Act of 26 March, 1804, directed that "the lands in
the District of Zanesville should be offered for public sale on the
third Monday of May." In pursuance of this act and of instructions
from the Secretary of the Treasury, the sale of the lands in the
district did commence on that day, and on the 26th day of that
month, the defendants became the purchasers of the land in
controversy.
There are many charges of fraud in the bill, and a contract
between the parties is alleged. But this Court cannot look into
those circumstances unless they had induced the court of Ohio to
determine against the person having the title under the laws of the
United States. As this case stands, the opinion of the state court
on the fraud and the contract is conclusive, and the only question
to be discussed here is the title of the plaintiff under the acts
of Congress. This depends entirely on the validity of his entry
made on the 12th of May, 1804.
Page 20 U. S. 207
This question has already been decided in this Court.
Page 20 U. S. 208
The plaintiff brought an ejectment against the defendants for
the lands in controversy, and, the judgment of the state court
being against him, the cause was brought by writ of error into this
Court.
Page 20 U. S. 209
In February, 1809, the judgment of the state court was affirmed,
this Court being of opinion that the erection of the Zanesville
District suspended the power of selling the lands lying within that
district at Marietta.
The counsel for the plaintiff contends that several material
circumstances which are now disclosed did not appear in that case.
But the Court is of opinion that the additional circumstances
relied on in argument can in no degree affect the point decided in
that case, which was that the power of selling at Marietta ceased
when the new district was established so far as respected the land
in that district.
This point has been reargued with great labor and talent, and
has been reconsidered by the Court. The result of that
reconsideration is that the original opinion is correct. We still
think that on the passage of the act by which the District of
Zanesville was created and the land within it directed to be sold
at that place, the power of selling the same land at Marietta
necessarily ceased.
It is, we think, impossible to look at these acts without
perceiving that the lands lying in one district could not be sold
in any other. Their words and their policy equally forbid it. The
land in controversy might have been sold at Marietta by the
register and receiver of that place previous to 3
Page 20 U. S. 210
March, 1803, because it lay in the district the lands of which
were directed by law to be sold at that place by those officers.
Had the land been out of that district, it could never have been
sold at that place or by those officers. When by law a new district
was formed comprehending this land, and its sale was directed at a
different place and by different persons, the land is placed as
entirely without the District of Marietta, as if it had never been
within it. The power of the officers of the land office at Marietta
to sell is expressly limited to the lands within the district, and
land which ceases to be within the district is instantly withdrawn
from that power.
That the effect of this construction is to suspend the sales of
land in the new district until the proper officers should be
appointed does not, we think, operate against it. An immense
quantity of land was in the market, and the laws furnish no
evidence in support of the opinion that the eagerness to keep the
whole continually within the reach of every purchaser was so great
as to hazard the confusion which might arise from any uncertainty
respecting the office at which any portion of it might be acquired.
If this intention had been so predominant, the legislature would
certainly have provided that the lands in the Zanesville District
might still be sold at Marietta until some day to be fixed in the
law by which it might be supposed that the office at Zanesville
would come into operation. The omission to make such a provision
forbids the opinion that Congress considered the necessity of
keeping all their lands in
Page 20 U. S. 211
a state to be instantly acquired as being so urgent that a court
would be justified in construing one of their statutes contrary to
its words. The known rule being that a statute for the commencement
of which no time is fixed commences from its date, the Act of 3
March, 1803, separated this land from the Marietta District on that
day and withdrew it from the direction and power of the officers of
that district. It was legally competent to those who possess the
power of appointment immediately to appoint necessary officers to
carry on the sales at Zanesville, and Congress did not think proper
to provide for continuing the sales at Marietta until such officers
should be appointed.
This Court, then, retains its opinion that independently of the
Act of 26 March, 1804, the entry made by Matthews on 12 May, 1804,
would be invalid. That opinion is still further strengthened by the
act last mentioned. That act, considering its 5th and 12th sections
together, directs all the lands in the Zanesville District to be
sold under the authority of the proper officers on the third Monday
of the ensuing May. Consequently there could be no power to sell
any of the land within that district at Marietta.
The case of the plaintiff may be and probably is a hard one. But
to relieve him is not within the power of this Court. We think the
plaintiff is not entitled under the laws of the United States to
the land he claims, and that the decree ought to be
Affirmed with costs.