No equitable and inchoate title to land in Missouri, arising
under the treaty with France, can be tried in the state court.
The Act of Congress passed on the 2d of March, 1807, 2 Stat.
440, did not
proprio vigore vest the legal title in any
claimants, for it required the favorable decision of the
commissioner and then a patent before the title was complete.
The Act of 12 April, 1814, 3 Stat. 121, confirmed those claims
only which had been rejected by the recorder upon the ground that
the land was not inhabited by the claimant on the 20th of December,
1803.
Where it did not appear by the report of the recorder that a
claim was rejected upon this specific ground, this act did not
confirm it.
The question whether or not the recorder committed an error in
point of fact was not open in the state court of Missouri upon a
trial of the legal title.
The mere possession of the public land, without title, for any
time, however long, will not enable a party to maintain a suit
against anyone who enters upon it, and more especially against a
person who derives his title from the United States.
The facts of the case are stated in the opinion of the
Court.
Page 57 U. S. 61
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE TANEY delivered the opinion of the Court.
This was a suit brought by petition in the circuit court of
Jefferson County, in the State of Missouri, by the plaintiff in
error, against the defendants.
"The petition sets forth in substance that John Jarrott, alias
Gerrard, in 1780, with the consent and permission of the officers
of the Spanish government, settled upon a tract of land in what is
now Jefferson County, in the State of Missouri, and that he
continued to inhabit and cultivate it until about 1796, when he was
driven off by the Indians. His son Joseph succeeded him in the
possession of the land, and continued to reside upon and cultivate
it until he sold it to Kendall, in the year 1812. Kendall filed a
notice of the claim with the United States Recorder of Land Titles,
who rejected it. The right of Kendall passed by descent to his
heirs at law, who sold to the plaintiff, as appears by conveyances
filed with the petition. It appears, moreover, that the plaintiff
has always been in possession since the purchase of Kendall's
heirs. A plat of the claim was laid down on the maps of the public
lands, in the Registrar's office, representing it as being reserved
to satisfy the claim of John Jarrott's legal representatives. After
the claim had been examined and rejected by the Recorder of Land
Titles, no farther action appears to have been taken on the
claim."
"In the years 1847-1848 and 1849, different portions of the same
tract of land were entered at the Registrar's office by different
individuals under preemptions allowed to them, the entries being
made at different times, each person purchasing in his own right
and in his own individual name, separate and distinct from the
others. The several persons making these separate and different
entries are made the defendants to this suit."
"The defendants demurred to the petition and assigned as causes
of demurrer first that the plaintiff showed no right in his
petition to maintain the action; second, that separate and distinct
causes of action against different persons were joined in the
petition."
"The Circuit Court of Jefferson County sustained the demurrers,
and the plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court of Missouri. The
supreme court affirmed the decision of the circuit court, and the
plaintiff has brought his case before this Court by writ of error
to reverse the decision of the Supreme Court of Missouri. "
Page 57 U. S. 62
In proceeding to deliver the opinion of the Court, it is proper
to observe that by the laws of Missouri, the distinction between
suits at law and in equity has been abolished. The party proceeds
by petition, stating fully the facts on which he relies if he seeks
to recover possession of land to which he claims a perfect legal
title, and he proceeds in the same manner if he desires to obtain
an injunction to quiet him in his possession or to compel and
adverse party to deliver up to be cancelled evidences of title,
improperly and illegally obtained, and he may, it seems, assert
both legal and equitable rights in the same proceeding and obtain
the appropriate judgment.
This has been done by the plaintiff in error in the present
case. His suit is brought according to the prayer of his petition
to recover possession of land to which he claims title, and upon
which, as he alleges, the defendants have unlawfully entered, and
also to compel them to abandon as he terms it their illegal
claim.
The demurrer admits the truth of the facts stated in the
petition. And, consequently, if these facts show that he had any
legal or equitable right to the land in question under the treaty
with France, or an act of Congress, which the state court was
authorized and bound to protect and enforce, he is entitled to
maintain this writ of error, and the judgment of the state court
must be reversed.
Now as regards any equitable and inchoate title which the
petitioner may possess under the treaty with France, it is quite
clear that the state court had no jurisdiction over it. For it has
been repeatedly held by this Court that, under that treaty, no
inchoate and imperfect title derived from the French or Spanish
authorities can be maintained in a court of justice, unless
jurisdiction to try and decide it has first been conferred by act
of Congress. Certainly no such jurisdiction has been given to any
state court. And the Supreme Court of Missouri were right in
sustaining the demurrer, as to this part of the petition, even if
it had been of opinion, that the permit to settle on the land, and
the long possession of it under the Spanish government, gave him an
equitable right, by the laws of Spain, to demand a perfect and
legal title. The court had no jurisdiction upon the question. And
the judgment of the state court cannot be reversed unless the
plaintiff can show that he had a complete and perfect title derived
from the Spanish or French authorities, or a legal or equitable
title under the laws of the United States.
The petitioner does not claim a perfect grant from the French or
Spanish government; nor a patent from the proper officers of the
United States. But he insists that the Act of Congress of March 3,
1807, 2 Stat. 440, vested in him a complete legal title, and needed
no patent to confirm it.
Page 57 U. S. 63
Undoubtedly Congress may, if it thinks proper, grant a title in
that form, and it has repeatedly done so. And we proceed to examine
whether the title claimed by the plaintiff was confirmed to him by
the act referred to.
The plaintiff relies on the second section as a confirmation of
his claim. But it evidently will not bear that construction when
taken in connection with the whole act. For the fourth section
directed commissioners to be appointed, who were authorized to
decide upon all claims to land under French or Spanish titles in
the Territories of Louisiana or Orleans, and by the sixth section,
whenever the final decision of the commissioner was in favor of the
claimant, he was entitled to a patent for the land, to be issued in
the manner provided for in that section. The eighth section
required the commissioners to report to the Secretary of the
Treasury their opinion upon all claims not finally confirmed by
them, the claims to be classified in the manner therein prescribed.
And it was made the duty of the Secretary to lay this report before
Congress for their final determination.
This act of Congress did not,
proprio vigore, vest the
legal title in any of the claimants. For even when the decision of
the commissioners was final in their favor, yet a patent was still
necessary to convey the title. The report was made conclusive
evidence of the equitable right, and nothing more. And when the
final decision was against the validity of the claim, he was
directed to report his opinion upon its merits, and Congress
reserved to itself the ultimate determination.
The powers and duties of the commissioner were subsequently
transferred to the Recorder of Land Titles. And this claim was
presented to him in 1812, with the evidence upon which the claimant
relied to support it. It is a claim under a settlement right
derived from the Spanish authorities, and which the claimant
insisted was within the provisions, and entitled to confirmation
under the second section of the act of 1807.
The recorder reported against it. His report states that there
was "possession, inhabitation, and cultivation in 1781, and eight
following years, and again two or three years." He assigns no
particular reason for rejecting the claim, but simply enters in his
report "not granted." And in this form, it was laid before
Congress, together with the other claims not finally decided by the
recorder in favor of the claimants. It does not, therefore, appear
from the report whether it was rejected because, in the judgment of
the recorder, the possession of ten consecutive years was not
sufficiently proved or because no evidence was offered, and none
appears to have been offered, to prove that the party under whose
title the claim was made was a resident of the territory on the
20th of December, 1803.
Page 57 U. S. 64
On behalf of the petitioner, it is contended, that the decision
of the recorder was erroneous and founded upon a mistake as to a
matter of fact, and that it appears by the evidence returned with
the report to the Secretary of the Treasury that the possession
spoken of was proved to have been for more than ten consecutive
years before the 20th of December, 1803 -- and not broken, as
stated in the report.
This may be true. The recorder may have fallen into error. But
it does not follow that plaintiff was entitled on that account to
maintain his petition in the Missouri court. That court had no
power to correct the errors of the recorder if he made any, nor to
revise his decision, nor to confirm a title which he had rejected.
That power, by the act of 1807, was expressly reserved to Congress
itself, and has not been committed even to the judicial tribunals
of the general government. The decision of the recorder against him
is final unless reversed by act of Congress, and the petitioner can
make no title under the United States by virtue of the provisions
in that act.
It is, however, insisted that if it was not confirmed by the act
of 1807, it was made valid by the act of 1814. And this
confirmation is claimed under the first section, which confirms all
claims where it appears by the report of the recorder that it was
rejected merely because the land was not inhabited by the claimant
on the 20th of December, 1803.
But it is very clear that this act does not embrace it. The
report of the recorder does not place its rejection merely on that
ground. On the contrary, it would seem to place it upon the want of
proof of continued residence upon the land for ten consecutive
years, and upon none other.
It may indeed have happened that the son of John Jarrett was in
possession, and actually inhabited the land on the day mentioned in
the law, and that from ignorance of its provisions, or from other
cause, he omitted to produce proof of it to the recorder, and that
the claim was in fact rejected on that account. But that question
was not open to inquiry in the Missouri court. The act of Congress
does not confirm all claims where this fact existed and could be
proved, but those only in which it appeared on the face of the
report that the want of this proof was the sole cause of its
rejection. This must appear on the written report of the recorder
to bring it within the provisions of this act, and cannot be
supplied by other evidence. And as it does not so appear in the
present case, the act of 1814 does not embrace it nor confirm
it.
Neither can the petition be maintained upon the long and
continued possession held by the petitioner and those under whom he
claims.
The legal title to this land, under the treaty with France,
was
Page 57 U. S. 65
in the United States. The defendants are in possession, claiming
title from the United States, and with evidences of title derived
from the proper officers of the government. It is not necessary to
inquire whether the title claimed by them is valid or not. The
petitioner, as appears by the case he presents in his petition, has
no title of any description derived from the constituted
authorities of the United States, or which any court of justice can
take cognizance. And the mere possession of public land, without
title, will not enable the party to maintain a suit against anyone
who enters on it, and more especially he cannot maintain it against
persons holding possession under title derived from the proper
officers of the government. He must first show a right in himself
before he can call into question the validity of theirs.
Whatever equity, therefore, the plaintiff may be suppose to
have, it is for the consideration and decision of Congress, and not
for the courts. If he has suffered injury from the mistake or
omission of the public officer, or from his own ignorance of the
law, the power to repair it rests with the political department of
the government, and not the judicial. It is expressly reserved to
the former by the act of Congress.
We see no error in the judgment of the Supreme Court of
Missouri, and it must be affirmed with costs.
Order
This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record
from the Supreme Court of the State of Missouri, 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.