This Court again decides, as in
50 U. S. 9 How.
127, and
51 U. S. 10 How.
609, that French grants of land in Louisiana, made after the Treaty
of Fontainbleau, by which Louisiana was ceded to Spain, are void
unless confirmed by the Spanish authorities before the cession to
the United States.
But if there has been continued possession under the grants so
as to lay the foundation for presuming a confirmation by Spain,
then the cases are not included within the acts of 1824 and 1844,
which look only to inchoate and equitable titles. The district
court of the United States has therefore no jurisdiction.
These four cases were land cases arising under the acts of 1824
and 1844, and were appeals from the District Court of the United
States for Louisiana.
They were cases of French grants made after the treaty of
Fontainbleau by which Louisiana was ceded to Spain.
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE TANEY delivered the opinion of the Court.
These four cases are all French grants made after the Treaty of
Fontainbleau, by which Louisiana was ceded to Spain. We have
already decided in the cases of
United
States v. Reynes, 9 How. 127, and
United
States v. D'Auterive, 10 How. 607, that grants of
this description are void unless confirmed by the Spanish
authorities before the cession to the United States. In some of
these cases, evidence has been offered
Page 54 U. S. 10
of continued possession by the grantees of those claiming under
them, ever since the grants were made. But if there has been such a
continued possession, and acts of ownership over the land as would
lay the foundation for presuming of confirmation by Spain of these
grants, or of either of them or any portion of either of them, such
confirmation would amount to an absolute title, and not an inchoate
or imperfect one. For all of the grants are absolute, or upon
conditions subsequent, and if they had been originally made by
competent authority, would have passed the legal title at the time,
subject only to be divested by a breach of the condition, in the
cases where a condition subsequent is annexed. Such a title, if
afterwards recognized by the Spanish authorities, is protected by
the treaty, and is independent of any legislation by Congress, and
requires no proceeding in a court of the United States to give it
validity.
Titles of this description were not therefore embraced in the
acts of 1824 and 1844, under which these proceedings were had.
These laws were passed to enable persons who had only an inchoate
and equitable title, to obtain an absolute and legal one, by
proceeding in the district court in the manner prescribed. And when
the title under which the party claims, would be a complete and
absolute one if granted by competent authority or established by
proof, the district courts have no jurisdiction under the acts of
Congress above mentioned to decide upon its validity. The act of
1824 is very clear upon this point, and it has always been so
construed by this Court.
Upon this ground the decree of the district court in each of
these cases is erroneous and must be reversed and a mandate issued
directing the petitions to be dismissed for want of
jurisdiction.
But this decision is not to prejudice the rights of the
respective petitioners or either of them in any suit where the
absolute and legal title to these lands or any portion of them may
be in question, or prevent them from showing if they can that the
French grant was recognized as valid or confirmed by the Spanish
authorities before the Treaty of St. Ildefonso.
Order
These causes 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 were 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 these causes be and
the same is hereby reversed and annulled, and that these causes be
and the same are hereby remanded to the said district court with
directions to dismiss the petitions of the claimants for want of
jurisdiction.