The Act of June 17, 1844, 5 Stat. 676, reviving the act of 1844,
gives jurisdiction to the district courts in cases only where the
title set up to lands, under grants from former governments, is
equitable and inchoate, and where there is no grant purporting to
convey a legal title.
Grants from the British government, as well as those of France
and Spain, are equally within this restriction.
The opinion of the Court sets out the facts of the case so far
as to raise the question of jurisdiction.
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE TANEY delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case arises on a petition filed by the appellees in the
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana praying that
their title to a certain tract of land containing one thousand
acres, situated on the Mississippi River to the westward of Baton
Rouge, may be declared valid and confirmed. They claim title under
Alexander McCullagh, Sr., who obtained a grant from the British
authorities while they were in possession of the country
Page 54 U. S. 217
and before it was ceded to Spain. The grant was made on certain
conditions therein specified which it is not necessary to state, as
the Court is of opinion that the district court had no jurisdiction
in the questions upon which the validity or invalidity of the title
claimed by the appellees against the United States depends.
The proceeding is under the Act of June 17, 1844, and this Court
has always held that under that act the district court has
jurisdiction in those cases only where the title set up by the
petitioner is equitable and inchoate and where there is no grant
purporting to convey a legal title, as contradistinguished from an
equitable one. It is true that the cases heretofore decided have
arisen under titles derived from the French or Spanish authorities
while they respectively held the territory and exercised dominion
over it. And this is the first case that has come before the Court
in which the title sought to be confirmed is derived from the
government of Great Britain. But as respects the jurisdiction of
the district court, claims of this description are placed by the
act of 1844 on the same footing with those which are derived from
France or Spain. The jurisdiction conferred in either case is that
of a court of equity only, and the titles which the court is
authorized to confirm are inchoate and imperfect ones which upon
principles of equity the government of the United States is bound
to confirm and make perfect.
In this case, all of the questions upon which the title of the
appellees depend are strictly legal questions, to be decided in a
court of law in a suit at law. They are not, therefore, within the
equity jurisdiction given by the acts of 1824 and 1844. There are
no equitable considerations involved in the controversy, and the
validity or invalidity of this claim can be tried and determined in
any court having competent jurisdiction to try and decide a
disputed title to land between individual claimants. There was no
necessity, therefore, for any special jurisdiction to try them, and
on that account they were not embraced in the acts of Congress
above mentioned.
It appears in this case that the district judge had an interest
in the land in question, and the cause was certified to the Circuit
Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana under the Act of March
3, 1821, and the decree affirming this title was passed by the
circuit court. This decree must be
Reversed and a mandate issued to the circuit court to
dismiss the petition without prejudice to the rights of the United
States or the appellees.
Order
This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the
Page 54 U. S. 218
record from the Circuit 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 circuit court in this
cause be and the same is hereby reversed, and that this cause be
and the same is hereby remanded to the said circuit court with
directions to dismiss the petition of the claimants without
prejudice to the rights of either the United States or the
appellees.