The principles established in the cases of
44 U. S. 3 How. 212
and
50 U. S. 9 How.
477 again affirmed --
viz., that after the admission of
Alabama into the Union as a state, Congress could make no grant of
land situated between high and low water marks.
The plaintiff in error brought an ejectment in the circuit court
of Mobile County, under the circumstances stated in the opinion of
the Court. The judgment of that court was against them, and they
then appealed to the Supreme Court of Alabama, where the judgment
was affirmed. They then brought the case up to this Court.
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE TANEY delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is an action of ejectment, and the plaintiffs in error
claim title to the premises under a contract of sale made by
Morales, the Spanish Intendant at Pensacola, with a certain William
McVoy, for twenty arpents of land on the west side of the River
Mobile, bounding on the river, which contract was afterwards
confirmed by an act of Congress.
The contract with McVoy was made in 1806. He subsequently
assigned his interest to William J. Kennedy and Joshua Kennedy,
Page 54 U. S. 26
and the latter became the sole owner by an assignment from the
former. An act of Congress was passed in 1832 confirming the title
of Joshua Kennedy upon two conditions: 1st, that the confirmation
should amount to nothing more than the relinquishment of the right
of the United States at that time in the land, and 2d, that the
lands before that time sold by the United States should not be
comprehended within the act of confirmation. And in 1837 a patent
was issued to Joshua Kennedy reciting in full this act of Congress
under which it was granted.
It is admitted in the record that the land in question was below
high water mark when the United States sold the land on which Fort
Charlotte stood, in the Town of Mobile. These lands were divided
into lots and sold in 1820 and 1821, and patents were issued to the
purchasers in the year last mentioned. The defendants made title to
three of these lots, which bounded on the river, and it was
admitted that at the time of the sale, high water extended over
their eastern limits, and that the land now in controversy was
reclaimed from the water and filled up by those under whom the
defendants claimed.
The question, therefore, to be decided in this case is whether
the title obtained under McVoy's contract, confirmed by the act of
Congress in 1832, or the title obtained under the sale of the lots
in 1820 and 1821 is the superior and better title.
The principles of law on which this question depends, have
already been decided in this Court in
Pollard v.
Hagan, 3 How. 212, and in
Goodtitle v.
Kibbe, 9 How. 477,
50 U. S. 478.
And according to the decisions in these two cases, the title under
the sale of the lots is the superior one.
The judgment of the Supreme Court of the State of Alabama must
therefore be
Affirmed.
Order
This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record
from the Supreme Court of the State of Alabama and was argued by
counsel. On consideration whereof, it is now here ordered and
adjudged by this Court that the judgment of the said supreme court
in this cause be and the same is hereby affirmed with costs.