Between May, 1829, and July, 1832, there was an interval in the
acts of Congress reserving lands from sale which were claimed under
Spanish concessions in Louisiana, and during this interval an entry
or patent for any of these lands would have been valid.
But a patent issued in 1827, whilst the reservation was in
force, was void, and the patent did not become operative
proprio vigore during the interval between 1829 and
1832.
The confirmation of the concession in 1836 therefore gave a good
title to the claimant under the concession.
Moreover, the New Madrid warrant, not being located within one
year from the 26th of April, 1822, was void.
This was a petition in the nature of an ejectment brought by
Easton against Salisbury in the St. Louis Court of Common Pleas to
recover the lots described in the opinion of the court. The court
of common pleas gave judgment for the defendant, and this judgment
was affirmed by the supreme court.
The plaintiff claimed under a New Madrid patent issued in 1827,
and the defendant under a Spanish concession which was confirmed in
1836. The Supreme Court of Missouri
Page 62 U. S. 427
was of opinion that the New Madrid patent was absolutely void
when issued and that it did not become operative in the interval
between May, 1829, and July, 1832.
Page 62 U. S. 428
MR. JUSTICE McLEAN delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is a writ of error to the Supreme Court of the State of
Missouri.
The parties agreed as to the facts in this case, in order that
the points of law might be ruled by the court.
On the 9th of July, 1811, there were confirmed to James Smith,
by the commissioners for the adjustment of titles to land in the
Territory of Missouri, lots nine and ten (9 and 10) containing two
arpens of land, in the Village of Little Prairie, in the County of
New Madrid, State of Missouri. Afterwards
Page 62 U. S. 429
these lots, while still owned by said Smith, were materially
injured by earthquakes, and proof thereof was made before the
recorder of land titles at St. Louis, on the 16th of November,
1815; whereupon there was issued by said recorder, to said James
Smith, a certificate of new location, commonly called a New Madrid
certificate, numbered 159. On the 22d of October, 1816, said Smith
and wife conveyed to Rufus Easton the said two arpens in Little
Prairie, and assigned to him the right to locate other lands under
said certificate in lieu of the land so injured, and also conveyed
to said Easton the land that might be located by means of said
certificate. On the 16th of November, 1816, Easton gave notice to
the Surveyor General of said Territory of Missouri of the location
of said certificate on a tract of land about two miles west of the
City of St. Louis, and demanded a survey thereof. In March, 1818, a
survey was made, by direction of the Surveyor General, in pursuance
of said selection, and was duly returned and approved by said
Surveyor General; said survey is numbered 2,491, and the land
thereby designated embraces the land in controversy, and is within
St. Louis township, in St. Louis County, Missouri. By virtue of the
premises, Easton held said land, claiming the same until 1826, when
he conveyed the same to William Russell. On the 28th day of May,
1827, the United States issued a patent on said location for said
land to James Smith or his legal representatives. On the 19th of
January, 1839, William assigned and conveyed all his interest in
said land to J. G. Easton, who, on the 18th of March, 1845,
conveyed and assigned the same to plaintiff. Defendant is in
possession of the land described in the petition, and the same is
within the boundaries indicated by said survey and patent.
On the 20th of January, 1800, a concession was made by the
Spanish lieutenant governor to one Mordecai Bell of three hundred
and fifty arpens of land, including the premises in controversy.
The representatives of Mordecai Bell, on the 29th of June, 1808,
presented the claim for said land, together with a descriptive plat
of survey thereof, to the board of commissioners for the adjustment
of land titles in the Territory of Missouri. The documents showing
said claim and the derivative
Page 62 U. S. 430
title from Mordecai Bell were duly recorded in 1808 by the
recorder of land titles for the Territory of Missouri. And on the
4th day of July, 1836, the United States confirmed said claim,
according to said plat of survey, to the legal representatives of
M. Bell; a survey of said confirmation was made by authority of the
United States in _____, and is numbered 3,026. Said survey embraces
the land in dispute, and all the title of the confirmee, by the act
of 1836, is in the defendant. The survey numbered 2,491, and also
the patent dated 28th of May, 1827, are in due form of law, but
defendant does not admit the authority of the officers of the
United States to make the one or issue the other, nor that the same
were made or issued under any law. It is admitted that the land in
controversy is worth more than two thousand dollars; that if the
Court should be of opinion that the plaintiff is entitled to
recover, it is agreed that the damages shall be fixed at one cent,
and the monthly value of the premises at one dollar. Either party
is at liberty to turn this case into a bill of exceptions, and
thereon prosecute a writ of error or take an appeal to the Supreme
Court of the State of Missouri or of the United States. It is
admitted that survey No. 3,026 was made under the authority of the
United States, but the plaintiff may dispute the power of the
United States as regards both the confirmation of 1836 and the
survey No. 3,026.
It is admitted that the plaintiff had, at the commencement of
this suit, all the title that was invested in said James Smith, or
his representatives, by the New Madrid location and patent above
mentioned.
It will be observed that this controversy arises between a New
Madrid title and a Spanish concession. A holder of a New Madrid
certificate had a right to locate it on any of the public lands
which had been authorized to be sold. This claim came into the
hands of Alton R. Easton, the plaintiff in error. It was surveyed
in March, 1818, and the 28th of May, 1827, the United States issued
a patent to James Smith, or his legal representatives.
From 1808 to the 26th of May, 1829, reservations were made from
time to time to satisfy certain claims, but from that time
Page 62 U. S. 431
they ceased, until renewed by the Act of the 9th of July, 1832.
During this period, it is understood by the plaintiff in error,
the
"land in question was subject to be disposed of to any person,
or in any manner, and was then open to entry or location. And it is
urged that the plaintiff had the right during this time to perfect
his title."
The President of the United States has no right to issue patents
for land, the sale of which is not authorized by law. In the case
of
Stoddard v.
Chambers, 2 How. 318, it is said, "The location of
Chambers was made on lands not liable to be thus appropriated, but
expressly reserved; and this was the case when his patent was
issued." Had the entry been made or the patent issued after the
26th of May, 1829, when the reservation ceased, and before it was
revived by the act of 1832, the title of the defendant could not be
contested.
Nothing was done to give Easton's title validity, from the
cessation of the reservation, in 1829, until its revival, in 1832.
His entry was made in 1818, and on the 28th of May, 1827, his
patent was issued. The land located and patented, having been
reserved, was not liable to be appropriated by his patent. Whether
the withdrawal of the patent might have been procured, or a new one
instituted, it is not necessary to inquire. No such attempt was
made.
But it seems by the Act of the 26th of April, 1822, it was
provided that all warrants under the New Madrid Act of the 15th of
February, 1815, which shall not be located within one year, shall
be held null and void. This law is decisive upon this point: all
New Madrid warrants not located within one year from the 26th of
April, 1822, are null and void. Smith's or Easton's certificate for
the New Madrid claim was void, and also his patent when issued,
under the paramount claim of Bell, whose title was confirmed by the
Act of the 4th of July, 1836. Bell made the conveyance to Mackey,
not having the legal title, but when, under the act of 1836, the
report of the commissioners was confirmed to Bell and his legal
representatives, the legal title vested in him, and inured, by way
of estoppel, to the grantee, and those who claim by deed under him.
Stoddard v.
Chambers, 2 How. 317
Page 62 U. S. 432
There was no period from the entry and patent of the New Madrid
claim in which that claim was valid. The location was not only
voidable, but it was absolutely void, as it was made on land
subject to a prior right. And under the act of 1822, all New Madrid
warrants not located within a year from that date, were declared to
be void.
Whether we look at the confirmatory act of 1836, which vested
the title in the confirmee, or to the New Madrid title asserted
against it, it is clear that the New Madrid title is without
validity, and that the fee is vested in the grantee of Bell.