The book called the Land Laws of Ohio, published by the
authority of a law of that state, is evidence in the Circuit Court
of the United States of an application made in 1787 for the
purchase of a tract of land on the Ohio River between the mouths of
the Great and Little Miami by John Cleves Symmes and his
associates, and of the various acts of Congress relative to that
application and purchase, and of a patent from the President of the
United States, pursuant to an act of Congress, granting to Symmes
and his associates the land described therein, and the production
of any other evidence of title in Symmes was unnecessary.
It would be productive of infinite inconvenience to settlers and
all persons interested in the lands embraced in this patent if its
publication among the laws of the state, and the admission of the
book of laws as evidence of the grant after its solemn adoption by
the Supreme Court of Ohio as a settled rule of property, should be
questioned in the courts of the United States.
There is no principle better established and more uniformly
adhered to in this Court than that the circuit courts, in deciding
on titles to real property in the different states, are bound to
decide precisely as the state courts ought to do. The rules of
property and of evidence, whether derived from the laws or
adjudications of the judicial tribunals of the state, furnish the
guides and rules of decision in those of the union in all cases to
which they apply where the Constitution, treaties, or statutes of
the United States do not otherwise provide.
The case was submitted to the Court by Mr. Doddridge on the
following case.
"This is an ejectment originally brought in the Common Pleas of
Hamilton County in the State of Ohio, and afterwards removed to the
Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Ohio, for a
part of lot No. 86, in the City of Cincinnati, in the County of
Hamilton in said state, by the defendant against the plaintiffs in
error. At the trial, a verdict and judgment were rendered for the
plaintiffs below, to reverse which the present writ of error is
prosecuted."
"During the progress of the trial, the counsel for the
defendants in error tendered a bill of exceptions, which was signed
and made part of the record, which states in substance that on the
trial of this cause, the counsel for the plaintiff, to maintain the
issue and prove title in his lessor, offered in evidence
Page 30 U. S. 399
an official copy of a deed of conveyance from John Cleves Symmes
and wife, duly recorded, dated __ July, 1795, for the said lot 86
to Abraham Garrison. A copy of a conveyance from the said Garrison
to James Finly for the said lot, duly executed and recorded and
dated 9 August, 1815, and also a copy of a deed from the said Finly
for the same lot, duly executed and recorded to the lessor of the
plaintiff, dated 20 April, 1818."
"The bill of exceptions then states that the foregoing deeds
were offered as evidence of title in the plaintiff's lessor,
without offering therewith or before any grant to Symmes or to any
person under whom he claims, or any copy thereof, to which
evidence, unaccompanied by the further evidence before mentioned,
the counsel for the defendant objected. But the court permitted the
counsel of the plaintiff, instead of such further evidence, to
offer in evidence and read from a certain book called 'Swan's Land
Laws of Ohio,' published by authority of a law of that state, all
that is contained in that book between page 25 and page 34, the
latter included, and the court thereupon declared its opinion to be
that the production of any other evidence of title in John C.
Symmes was unnecessary, the court being satisfied that the Supreme
Court of Ohio has solemnly settled it as a rule of property in
cases arising within the Miami purchase, where the lot aforesaid is
situated, to produce any further evidence than before mentioned.
"
Page 30 U. S. 400
MR. JUSTICE BALDWIN delivered the opinion of the Court.
The suit in the court below was an ejectment brought by the
defendant in error to recover part of lot No. 86 in the City of
Cincinnati. The plaintiff offered in evidence of his title an
official copy of a deed of conveyance from John Cleves Symmes and
wife, duly recorded, dated July, 1795, for the said lot No. 86, to
one Abraham Garrison, and a regular chain of title from Garrison to
the lessor of the plaintiff, which was objected to by the defendant
because no title was proved in Symmes. In order to prove this, the
court permitted the counsel for the plaintiff, instead of offering
a deed or grant from the United States to Symmes, to offer in
evidence and to read from a book called the Land Laws of Ohio,
published by authority of a law of that state, an application made
in 1787 for the purchase of a tract of land on the Ohio River
between the mouths of the Great and Little Miami Rivers by John
Cleves Symmes and his associates; also various acts of Congress
relative to said application and purchase, authorizing the
President of the United States to convey to said Symmes and his
associates certain lands therein referred to; also a patent from
the President pursuant to an Act of Congress passed 5 May, 1792,
granting to Symmes and his associates in fee a tract of land
containing 311,000 acres, bounded south by the River Ohio, on the
west by the Great Miami River, on the east by the Little Miami
River, and on the north by a parallel of latitude to be run from
the Great to the Little Miami Rivers so as to include the quantity
aforesaid.
The court thereupon declared its opinion to be that the
production of any other evidence of title in Symmes than what had
been so exhibited was unnecessary, and further declared it was
satisfied that the Supreme Court of Ohio had solemnly settled it as
a rule of property in cases arising out of conflicting titles
within the tract of land so granted to Symmes and his associates,
which is called the Miami Purchase and comprehends Cincinnati, that
no further evidence of title in Symmes than what appears in the
book so read, is ever necessary.
The admission of this book in evidence and the declaration
Page 30 U. S. 401
of the court that it was sufficient evidence of title in John
Cleves Symmes, under whom the plaintiff claimed, presents a case
clear of all doubt. It would be productive of infinite
inconvenience to suitors and to all persons interested in the lands
embraced in this patent if its publication among the laws of a
state and the admission of the book of laws as evidence of the
grant after its solemn adoption by the Supreme Court of Ohio as a
settled rule of property should be questioned in the courts of the
United States.
There is no principle better established and more uniformly
adhered to in this Court than that the circuit courts, in deciding
on titles to real property in the different states, are bound to
decide precisely as the state courts ought to do.
Wilkinson v.
Leland, 2 Pet. 656. The rules of property and of
evidence, whether derived from the laws or adjudications of the
judicial tribunals of a state, furnish the guides and rules of
decision in those of the Union in all cases to which they apply
where the Constitution, treaties, or statutes of the United States
do not otherwise provide. The judges who tried this cause were
satisfied that it had been solemnly settled by the Supreme Court of
Ohio as a rule of property, in the trial of all cases affecting the
title to lands within the boundaries of the patent to Symmes, that
the book of land laws was to be taken as sufficient evidence of the
grant by the United States to him of all the land embraced within
it. The record affords no reason for any doubt of the existence of
such a rule, which we think reasonable, highly conducive to the
convenience of suitors, and fully within the power of the state
court to adopt. This Court would decide contrary to the spirit of
all its former decisions on similar subjects in declaring the
evidence received in this case inadmissible or insufficient to show
title in the plaintiff. It is its unanimous opinion that the
judgment must be affirmed.
The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed with
costs.