The Court again decides, as in the preceding case, that where a
Spanish grant was made in 1788 and no evidence was offered that
possession was taken under the
Page 54 U. S. 5
grant, nor any claim of right or title made under it until 1837,
nor any evidence given to account for the neglect, the presumption
is that the claim had been abandoned.
In this case also there was no proof that the persons who
purported to convey as heirs were actually the heirs of the party
whom they professed to represent.
This was a land case arising under the acts of 1824 and 1844,
and came up by appeal from the District Court of the United States
for Louisiana.
The parties were the same as in the preceding case.
The petition in this case was filed in the District Court for
the Eastern District of Louisiana on 16 June, 1846.
The petitioner, Hughes, claims under a grant alleged to have
been made by Governor Gayoso to Andre Martin on 10 October, 1798,
of a tract of land of twenty-eight arpents front, with a depth of
one hundred arpents, situated on the west bank of the Atchafalaya,
about one league above where the trace or road from Opelousas to
Point Coupee crosses the said river. The petitioner alleges further
that said Martin took immediate possession &c., and that the
board of commissioners made a favorable report on the claim in the
year 1840, but that Congress never acted on it, and that he holds a
title to one thousand arpents thereof &c. He thereupon prays
that his title may be decreed to be good.
The answer of the United States is a general denial of the
allegations of the petition.
The evidence of the original title is the petition of Andre
Martin to the governor for the said tract of land, and the
governor's decree thereon, signed by him in these words: "Granted
forever, that he may establish it," and dated "New Orleans, October
10, 1798."
Hughes claimed title under a deed from certain persons who
represented themselves to be the heirs of Martin dated 14f July,
1848.
The district court decided in favor of the petitioner, and the
United States appealed.
MR. JUSTICE NELSON delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is an appeal from a decree of the District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana.
The plaintiff, Hughes, claimed in the court below 3,800 arpents
of land situate in Louisiana on the west bank of the Atchafalaya
River about one league above where the road from Opelousas to Point
Coupee crosses said river under a concession from
Page 54 U. S. 6
Governor Gayoso to one Andre Martin, 10 October, 1798.
The petition was presented to the district court on 16 June,
1846, under the Act of 17 June, 1844, reviving the Act of 26 May,
1824, praying for a confirmation of the grant in pursuance of the
provisions of the act.
Evidence was given of the handwriting of Martin to the
application to the governor for the grant of the tract in question
and of the handwriting of the governor to the grant.
The plaintiff also gave in evidence a conveyance by notarial act
under date of 14 July, 1848, purporting to be made by the heirs of
Andre Martin the original grantee, to himself, conveying one
thousand arpents, part of the tract of 3,800 arpents, to be taken
off the front part of the tract.
Evidence was also given of a notice to the registers and
receivers of the land office at Opelousas, in Louisiana, of a claim
on behalf of the heirs of Martin by their attorney for confirmation
of the claim under date 1 February, 1837. What action took place
before these officers on the application, if any, does not appear
on the record, nor have we been referred to any proceedings
therein.
There is no evidence that possession was ever taken of the land
by the grantee or any person claiming under him, nor of any claim
of right to the possession, or of any right or title under the
concession, or of the actual existence even of the concession
itself, until the application to the register and receiver in 1837,
a period of ever thirty-eight years from its date. Nor is there any
evidence in the record accounting for the neglect to take
possession, or for the absence of evidence of an assertion of right
under the grant, or of even the existence of the grant itself for
so long a period of time.
The plaintiff rests his claim exclusively upon the production,
and proof of this incomplete grant by Governor Gayoso in 1798, of
his title as derived from the grantee in 1848 and of the
application to the officers of the land office at Opelousas in
1837.
We have already held in a previous case of this plaintiff and
the United States that the neglect to take possession, and the
absence of any claim under the grant and of any evidence even of
the existence of the grant itself for so long a period of time
afford such a violent presumption of abandonment of the claim that
unless explained to the satisfaction of the court, it is
impossible, consistent with any sound principles of law or of
equity, to uphold it. We refer to the opinion given in that case on
this point as decisive of the present one.
There is also an additional objection to a recovery in this case
that did not exist in the one referred to. The plaintiff
Page 54 U. S. 7
shows no title to the land in question. There is no proof in the
record that the persons joining in the conveyance to him of the
premises in July, 1848, were the heirs of Martin the original
grantee. The recital in the instrument is no evidence of the fact.
The proper proof should have been furnished of the heirship.
For these reasons, we are of opinion that the decree of the
court below is erroneous and should be
Reversed, and remit the proceedings to the court below with
directions to dismiss the petition.
Order
This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record
from the District 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 district court in this cause be, and
the same is hereby reversed and annulled; and that this cause be
and the same is hereby remanded to the said district court with
directions to dismiss the petition of the claimant.
