Tate v. Carney,
65 U.S. 357 (1860)

Annotate this Case
  • Syllabus  | 
  • Case

U.S. Supreme Court

Tate v. Carney, 65 U.S. 24 How. 357 357 (1860)

Tate v. Carney

65 U.S. (24 How.) 357


Under several acts of Congress, the register and receiver of the land office were authorized to grant a certificate to every person who should appear to be entitled to land in the section of country east of the Mississippi River and west of the Perdido River.

Under these acts, Robert Yair received a certificate in 1824 for the land now in controversy.

In 1848, the register and receiver decided that Nancy Tate had settled upon this land at a very early day. They annulled the former certificate and granted an order of survey, by means of which a patent was issued in 1853 to the representatives of Nancy Tate. The patent reserves the right of Robert Yair.

The decision of the register and receiver upon this question of title is not conclusive. They have power only to decide how the lands confirmed shall be surveyed and located. They had no authority to overthrow the decision of the register and receiver that had been made more than twenty years before, which had been followed by possession, and as to which there had intervened the claims of bona fide purchasers.

This case was brought up from the Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana, holding sessions for the Eastern District of Louisiana, being issued under the twenty-fifth section of the Judiciary Act.

The headnote has given an outline of the case so that the reader can understand it, and the opinion of the Court contains a full statement.

Tate was sued in the court below, and disclaimed title otherwise than as one of the heirs of Nancy Tate, whose other heirs then intervened.

Page 65 U. S. 358

Carney and the others claimed under Yair's title.

The Supreme court of Louisiana rejected the claim of the heirs of Nancy Tate, who brought the case up to this Court.

Disclaimer: Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.