After the mandate went down to the circuit court, in the ease of
Ballance v.
Forsyth, 13 How. 18, Ballance filed a bill upon the
equity side of the court setting forth the same titles which were
involved in the suit at law, and praying relief.
Page 65 U. S. 184
It was not allowable for him to appeal from the judgment of the
circuit court and supreme court to a court of chancery, upon the
merits of the legal titles involved in the controversy they had
adjudicated.
The objections to the title of his adversary should have been
urged upon the trial of the suit at law, and if they are founded
upon alleged errors in the location and survey, all such questions
are administrative in their character, and must be disposed of in
the Land Office. He ought to have made opposition there; if he did
not, he is concluded by his laches.
In the record there is a paper purporting to be an amended bill.
It is doubtful whether this was properly filed, and if it was, it
presents no ground of relief.
This was a sequel to the case of
Ballance v.
Forsyth, reported in 13 How. 18. After the mandate
went down from this Court, Ballance filed a bill on the equity side
of the court, setting forth the same titles that were involved in
the suit at law, and praying relief upon certain special grounds,
which it is not necessary to enumerate.
MR. JUSTICE CAMPBELL delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is a bill filed by the plaintiff to enjoin the execution of
a judgment in the circuit court upon which a writ of error had been
taken to this Court and affirmed.
The cause in this Court was between the same parties, and the
decision of the court is reported in
54
U. S. 13 How. 18.
The plaintiff sets forth the claims of the respective parties,
and insists that his is the superior right, and that he is entitled
to have the property. But it is not allowable to him to appeal from
the judgment of the circuit court and Supreme court to a court of
chancery upon the relative merit of the legal titles involved in
the controversy they had adjudicated.
He further objects to the title of his adversaries. He insists,
that in the location of their claim under the acts of May, 1820,
and March, 1823, referred to in the report of the case as the
source of their title, there was an erroneous location and
survey,
Page 65 U. S. 185
and that a larger extent of ground was conceded to them than
they were entitled to; that the plan of survey did not conform to
the requirement of Congress, and that their proofs were not filed
in time. If either of these objections is of sufficient force to
invalidate the title and to render it void, it should have been
urged upon the trial at law, and it is too late after judgment upon
the title to employ it to contest the issuing of the execution. But
if they are mere irregularities, the court of chancery has no
jurisdiction to notice them. It is the settled doctrine of this
Court that in the location and survey of claims arising under the
acts of Congress like those of May, 1820, and March, 1823, the
Executive Department of the government has, in general, exclusive
jurisdiction, and that all questions arising upon their location
and survey are administrative in their nature, and must be disposed
of in the Land Office.
The plaintiff was aware of the existence of these claims and of
the jurisdiction to which their adjustment was confided.
His patent contains an explicit reservation of the rights of any
and all persons claiming under the act of Congress of 3 March,
1823, entitled "An act to confirm certain claims to lots in the
Village of Peoria, in the State of Illinois." If he pretermitted
his opposition to their location and survey before the General Land
Office, he is concluded by his laches. If his opposition was made
unsuccessfully, the decision of that department upon his objections
is binding upon him.
Besides these objections, the plaintiff has introduced into the
record a claim for the improvements upon the lots recovered by the
judgment of the circuit court. It is not at all clear that the
amendments to the bill in which this claim is contained were filed
with leave, and form any part of the bill. It is not charged in
them that the plaintiffs in the suits at law have opposed any
obstruction to his removal of the improvements, and the entire
statement of the bill concerning them is vague and unsatisfactory.
We are unable to find in them any ground upon which the suspension
of the execution of the judgment can be justified.
The decree of the circuit court is
Affirmed.
