On an appeal from the Superior Court of East Florida by the
United States, the decree of the Court of East Florida was in part
affirmed, the title of Sibbald, the appellee, to whom the grant of
land had been made by the Spanish governor before the cession of
Florida having been deemed valid by the Supreme Court. The decree
of the Supreme Court directed the Surveyor of Public Lands in East
Florida to do all things enjoined on him by law in relation to the
lands in the surveys made for the grantee. The case was remanded to
the Superior Court of East Florida, for the execution of this
decree. The mandate of the Supreme Court for the execution of the
decree of the Supreme Court was directed to the Superior Court of
East Florida and the Surveyor of Public Lands would not make the
surveys of the lands in the grant according to the decision of the
court, the mandate not having been issued to him. A petition was
presented to the Court by Sibbald stating these facts and asking
the Court to order that a mandate be made out directing the
Surveyor of Public Lands to do all required of him in relation to
the surveys of the lands of the grantee in conformity with the
decree of the Court, and also to the Superior Court of East
Florida, directing the court to cause further to be done therein
what of right and according to law and justice and in conformity to
the decree of the Court ought to be done. By the Court
"Had it appeared that a mandate more special than the one which
was"
sent would have been necessary, it would have been ordered. The
Court is bound to grant a mandate which will suit the case. The
mandate which is annexed to the petition was issued by the clerk,
directed only to the court below,
and no direction is given to the surveyor. It is therefore, no
execution of the final decree of the Supreme Court, and as it
remains unexecuted, it is not too late to have it done, and
requires no new order or decree in any way modifying that which has
been rendered. The clerk was ordered to make out a certificate of
the final decree of the court before rendered, and also a mandate
according to such final decree, the opinion of the Court in the
case, and on the petition.
Appellate power is exercised over the proceedings of inferior
courts, not on those of the appellate courts. The superior court
has no power to review their decisions, whether in a case at law or
equity. A final decree in chancery is as
conclusive as a judgment at, law. Both are conclusive on the
rights of the parties thereby adjudicated. No principle is better
settled or of more universal application that no court can reverse
or annul its own final decrees or judgments for errors of fact or
law after the term in which they have been rendered unless for
clerical mistakes or to reinstate a cause dismissed by mistake,
from which it follows that no change or modification can be made
which may substantially vary or affect it, in any material thing.
Bills of review in cases of equity, and writs of error,
coram
vobis, at law, are exceptions.
When the Supreme Court has executed its power in a case before
it, and its final decree or judgment requires some further act to
be done, it cannot issue an execution, but will send a special
mandate to the court below to award it.
Whatever was before the Court and is disposed of is considered
finally settled.
Page 37 U. S. 489
The inferior court is bound by the decree as the law of the
case, and
must carry it into execution according to the mandate; it can
examine it for no other purpose than execution or give any other or
further relief or review it upon any matter decided on appeal for
error apparent or intermeddle with it further than to settle so
much as has been remanded.
After a mandate, no rehearing will be granted, and on a
subsequent appeal nothing is brought up but the proceeding
subsequent to the mandate.
If the special mandate directed by the 24th section of the
Judiciary Act is not obeyed, then the general power given to
"all the courts of the United States to issue any writs which
are necessary for the exercise of their respective jurisdictions,
and agreeable to the principles and usages of law"
by the 14th section of the Judiciary Act fairly arises, and a
mandamus or other appropriate writ will go.
Mr. Clarke, for Mr. Sibbald, moved to reform the mandate issued
by the Court in this case at January term, 1836, so as to conform
the same to the opinion given by the Court at that time, or to
issue a mandate to the Surveyor General of the District of East
Florida to do those acts and things which he is commanded to do by
the judgment of this Court and which are enjoined on him by law. He
cited
35 U. S. 10 Pet.
313; 3 Story's Laws U.S. 1962;
34 U. S. 9 Pet.
171;
35 U. S. 10 Pet.
100.
The petition on which the motion was made, stated that at
January term, 1836, the Supreme Court of the United States, the
case of
United States, appellants v. Charles F. Sibbald,
appellee, was argued and determined in favor of said Charles
F. Sibbald, and thereupon the following decree was given,
to-wit:
"On consideration whereof it is ordered, adjudged, and decreed
by this Court that the decree of the said superior court confirming
the title of the petitioner to the ten thousand acres on Trout
Creek be and the same is hereby affirmed, and that the residue of
the decree of the said superior court be and the same is hereby
reversed and annulled. And this Court, proceeding to render such
decree as the said superior court ought to have rendered, doth
order, adjudge, and decree that the claim of the petitioner to the
land embraced in the surveys of four thousand acres and of two
thousand acres, as returned with and contained in the record, is
valid, and that the same be and is hereby confirmed. And it is
further ordered, adjudged, and decreed by this Court that the
Surveyor of Public Lands in the Eastern District of Florida be and
he is hereby directed to do and cause to be done all the acts and
things enjoined on him by law in relation to the lands within said
survey. And that the said cause be
Page 37 U. S. 490
and the same is hereby remanded to the said superior court to
cause further to be done therein what of right and according to law
and justice and in conformity to the opinion and decree of this
Court ought to be done."
See 35 U. S. 10
Pet. 324.
"The petitioner further represents that he made application by
his solicitor to said Superior Court of East Florida to execute the
mandate aforesaid, and which mandate he now exhibits in this Court,
together with the opinion of the judge of said superior court
declining to execute said mandate according to the requirements of
your petitioners for want of power or authority under said mandate.
Your petitioner further represents that by the opinion and judgment
of this Honorable Court he considered two points as clearly
settled, to-wit: first, that he was entitled to the full complement
of sixteen thousand acres, according to his original grant.
Secondly, that he had an inherent privilege to direct or point out
where other locations should be made in case the survey or surveys
made for him was interfered with by older and good claims. Your
petitioner further represents that after said mandate was issued
and its execution demanded, it was clearly ascertained that there
were divers interferences with older surveys, so as to prevent him
from obtaining his full amount of lands unless the deficiency were
made up to him by other locations to be pointed out. It would be
seen by the opinion of the judge of said superior court that he
declined so to direct said surveys according to his construction of
said mandate. The petitioner further sets forth that, in the decree
of said court, the Surveyor General of East Florida was ordered and
directed to do certain acts and make the surveys therein ordered,
but that no such mandate has been directed to said surveyor. He
therefore prays that said mandate may be issued in such terms as in
the opinion of the Court may be right and proper. Your petitioner
therefore humbly prays your Honorable Court to amend the error in
said mandate as to conform to the judgment of the Court, and that
full and complete execution thereof may be had."
The petition was sworn to by Charles F. Sibbald, before a
justice of the peace of the County of Washington in the District of
Columbia.
On 7 March, 1838, the counsel for the petitioner filed the
following supplemental petition:
Page 37 U. S. 491
"The supplemental petition of said Charles F. Sibbald,
respectfully represents that by reference to the judgment of the
Court as set forth in
35 U. S. 10 Pet. 324, it
was"
" Ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the Surveyor of Public
Lands in the Eastern District of Florida be and he is hereby
directed to do and cause to be done all the acts and things
enjoined on him by law in relation to the lands within said
survey."
"And it was further ordered, adjudged, and decreed:"
" That the said cause be, and the same is hereby remanded to the
said superior court to cause further to be done therein what of
right and according to law and justice and in conformity to the
opinion and decree of this Court ought to be done."
"Your petitioner respectfully represents that by the said
judgment and decree certain duties were imposed upon the surveyor
of the public lands, as well as upon the said superior court, but
that the mandate of this Court as made out by the clerk is made to
the judge of the superior court only, and none is directed to said
surveyor, which your petitioner considers not to be an execution of
or in conformity with the judgment of this Court. The duties of a
surveyor are prescribed by the 6th and 11th secs. of the Act of
Congress of 1824, 3 Story 1962. And by an Act of 23 May, 1828, are
made applicable to cases in Florida. 4 Story 2126, sec. 6, and 6
Laws U.S. 68, sec. 6. The duties of the judge of the superior court
are defined by the 1st sec. of said act of 1824, 3 Story 1960. Your
petitioner therefore respectfully prays that the mandate of the
court as rendered be made out by the clerk in conformity to the
judgment of the court, and that it be so done as to direct the said
surveyor by a mandate to him to do or cause to be done all the acts
and things enjoined on him by law in relation to the lands within
said surveys. And also to direct the mandate to the superior court
to cause further to be done therein what of right and according to
law and justice and in conformity to the opinion and decree of this
Court ought to be done."
MR. JUSTICE BALDWIN delivered the opinion of the Court.
The matter of the original and supplemental petition of the
party is founded on a final decree of this Court in the case of
United States v.
Sibbald, 10 Pet. 313,
35 U. S. 325,
in which latter page will be
Page 37 U. S. 492
found the final decree and mandate therein made, the substance
whereof is fully set out in the petitions now before us.
Before we proceed to consider the matter presented by these
petitions, we think proper to state our settled opinion of the
course which is prescribed by the law for this Court to take after
its final action upon a case brought within its appellate
jurisdiction, as well as that which the Court, whose final decree
or judgment has been thus verified, ought to take.
Appellate power is exercised over the proceedings of inferior
courts, not on those of the appellate court. The Supreme Court have
no power to review their decisions, whether in a case at law or in
equity. A final decree in chancery is as conclusive as a judgment
at law.
14 U. S. 1
Wheat. 355;
19 U. S. 6
Wheat. 113,
19 U. S. 116.
Both are conclusive on the rights of the parties thereby
adjudicated. No principle is better settled or of more universal
application than that no court can reverse or annul its own final
decrees or judgments for errors of fact or law after the term in
which they have been rendered, unless for clerical mistakes;
16 U. S. 3 Wheat.
591;
16 U. S. 3 Pet.
431, or to reinstate a cause dismissed by mistake,
25 U. S. 12 Wheat.
10, from which it follows, that no change or modification can be
made which may substantially vary or affect it in any material
thing. Bills of review in cases in equity and writs of error coram
vobis at law are exceptions which cannot affect the present
motion.
When the Supreme Court has executed its power in a cause before
it, and its final decree or judgment requires some further act to
be done, it cannot issue an execution, but shall send a special
mandate to the court below to award it. 24 sec. Judiciary Act, 1
U.S. Stat. 85, Laws 61. Whatever was before the Court and is
disposed of is considered as finally settled. The inferior court is
bound by the decree as the law of the case, and must carry it into
execution according to the mandate. It cannot vary it or examine it
for any other purpose than execution, or give any other or further
relief or review it upon any matter decided on appeal for error
apparent, or intermeddle with it further than to settle so much as
has been remanded. 1 S.C. 194, 197; 1 H. & M. 557; 3 Munf. 228.
After a mandate, no rehearing will be granted. It is never done in
the House of Lords, 3 Dow. P.C. 157, and on a subsequent appeal
nothing is brought up but the proceeding subsequent to the mandate.
9 U. S. 5 Cranch
316;
20 U. S. 7 Wheat.
58-59;
23 U. S. 10
Wheat. 443.
If the special mandate directed by the 24th section is not
obeyed
Page 37 U. S. 493
or executed, then the general power given to
"all the courts of the United States to issue any writs which
are necessary for the exercise of their respective jurisdictions
and agreeable to the principles and usages of law"
by the 14th section of the Judiciary Act fairly arises, and a
mandamus, or other appropriate writ will go. 1 U.S.Stat. 81.
In the original cause, the now petitioner claimed sixteen
thousand acres of land which had been surveyed in three tracts of
ten, four, and two thousand acres. The court below confirmed his
title to the tract of ten thousand acres, surveyed at the place
called for in the grant, but rejected his claim to the two others,
surveyed elsewhere, by their final decree, which concluded
thus:
"And it is further ordered, adjudged and decreed that the said
claimant have leave to survey the whole number of acres called for
in his grant at the place designated in the same, provided vacant
lands of sufficient extent may be obtained at that place."
The effect of this decree was to confirm the title to the whole
quantity of sixteen thousand acres called for in the grant, if so
much could be found vacant at the place called for, but to prohibit
the survey of the deficiency at any other than the place
designated, whereby the claim was reduced to ten thousand acres. On
an appeal to this Court, the petitioner's claim was confirmed to
its full extent of sixteen thousand acres, according to the three
separate surveys in the record; the decree below was affirmed as to
the ten thousand, and reversed as to the two other surveys of four
and two thousand acres respectively, and a mandate ordered
accordingly.
In order to ascertain the true intention of the decree of
confirmation, and consequently of the mandate, and its effect, that
part of the decree below which was affirmed must be taken in
connection with the petitioner's title and the construction of it
by this Court. Both courts confirmed the title to the whole
quantity claimed; the difference between them was as to the two
small surveys, which the court below rejected on their construction
of the grant; being of opinion that by its terms, the whole
quantity must be surveyed in one place. This Court, construing the
grant differently, held that, by its terms, it authorized surveys
at places other than the one described, and that after surveying
all that was vacant there, the quantity found deficient might be
surveyed where the grantee designated. This was done, as appeared
by the evidence; surveys were made by the proper officers,
Page 37 U. S. 494
and without objections by the Spanish governor. These were the
surveys confirmed by this Court, at the place referred to in the
plots in the record.
See 35 U. S. 10
Pet. 323-324. There can therefore be no difficulty in understanding
the mandate in this respect. It gives to the surveys of four and
two thousand acres, the same validity as if they had been made for
the land specified in the grant; as the "equivalent" of what could
not be found vacant at the place called for in the grant. In the
decree of the court below, the proviso, if vacant lands of
sufficient extent can be obtained at that place, must be referred
to the decree of this Court affirming that part of the decree, in
conformity with the opinion, as to the "equivalent," for such
portion of the whole quantity as was not open to appropriation when
the ten thousand acres were surveyed.
To make up such
"equivalent" consistently with the
declared opinion of the Court, the party must have the right of
filling up his claim in some mode, or he will obtain a less
quantity than has been confirmed to him by our final decree, which
the law declares shall be final and conclusive between the parties,
who were the United States and the petitioner. 3 Story L. 1961. The
latter must therefore have his sixteen thousand acres
somewhere.
By the eleventh section of the act of 1824, provision is made
for the case in enacting,
"That if in any case it should so happen that the lands,
tenements, or hereditaments, decreed to any claimant under the
provisions of this act, shall have been sold by the United States,
or otherwise disposed of, or if the same shall not have been
heretofore located, in each and every such case the party may enter
the like quantity,"
&c., 3 Story, 1963. This section applies to each of the
three surveys, provided that either comes within its provisions, by
its appearing that any part thereof cannot be obtained pursuant to
our decree. By the sixth section of the same act, the duties to be
performed after a final decision in favor of the claimant, are
prescribed, the clerk of this Court is to give a copy of the decree
under the seal of the Court to the party, who shall deliver it to
the surveyor of the state or territory, who shall cause the land to
be surveyed and a plot thereof to be made out and returned to the
land office, which shall entitle the party to a patent.
Ibid. This section applies to confirmations, where there
is no interfering claim, so that nothing remains to be done by the
court below, but when the case comes under the eleventh section,
then the surveyor, and the court
Page 37 U. S. 495
below must both act, the one to ascertain what portion of either
of the confirmed survey comes within its provisions, and the other
to decide on the return of the surveyor, how much land, if any, is
to be entered at the proper land office. In such cases, the court
below acts under our mandate to execute our decree on those matters
which remained for their future action; which is to be done in the
same manner
pro tanto, as when the whole case was
originally before it, in the first instance; according to the
provisions of the first section of the act, with this exception,
that they cannot act on any question of the title of the party to
the full quantity confirmed, or decide against the validity of the
surveys which have been confirmed by this Court. So far as our
final decree goes, it must be taken to be conclusive.
On receiving the mandate, the court below must
"determine all questions arising (in its execution) in relation
to the extent, locality, and boundaries of said claim, or other
matters connected therewith, fit and proper to be heard and
determined, and may, at discretion, order disputed facts to be
found by a jury; and otherwise proceed as directed in that
section."
Ibid. By this reference to the law the meaning of the
mandate of this Court directed to the surveyor, commanding him to
do and perform the acts enjoined on him by law, and to the court
below
"to cause further to be done therein, what of right, according
to law and justice, in conformity to the opinion and decree of this
Court, ought to be done [is evident]."
In
Mitchell v. United States, where the Court
apprehended that some difficulty might occur, a special mandate was
made out on great deliberation.
34 U. S. 9 Pet.
761-762. In
United States v. Soulard, one was made to meet
the case,
35 U. S. 10
Pet. 105-106, and had it appeared from the record, in the case
between the United States and the petitioner, that a mandate more
special than the one made out would have been necessary, it would
have been done. The one ordered is, in substance, the same as
those, and with the references now made, will meet the prayer of
the petition, which we feel bound to grant for the reasons set
forth. The mandate which is annexed to the petition was issued by
the clerk, directed only to the court below, and no direction is
given to the surveyor; it is therefore no execution of our final
decree, and as it thus remains unexecuted, it is not too late to
have it done, and requires no new order or decree
Page 37 U. S. 496
in any way modifying that which has been rendered in the
reported case.
It is therefore ordered that the clerk of this Court make out a
certificate of the final decree heretofore rendered in the case of
United States v. Sibbald, and also a mandate according to
such final decree, the opinion of the Court in that case, and on
these petitions.
On consideration of the motion made in this cause by Mr. Clarke,
of counsel for the appellant, on a prior day of the present term of
this Court, to-wit, on Saturday, 10 February, A.D. 1838, and of the
arguments of counsel thereupon had, it is now here considered,
ordered and adjudged by this Court, that the clerk of this Court
make out a certificate of the final decree heretofore rendered in
the case of
United States v. Sibbald, and also a mandate
according to such final decree, the opinion of the Court in that
case and on this petition.
