1. A patent certificate, or patent issued, or confirmation made
to an original grantee or his "legal representatives," embraces
representatives of such grantee by contract, as well as by
operation of law, leaving the question open in a court of justice
as to the party to whom the certificate, patent, or confirmation
should enure.
2. The fact that A., many years ago, did present to a board of
commissioners appointed by law to pass upon imperfect titles to
land a "claim" to certain land, describing it as "formerly" of B.,
an admitted owner; the fact that the board entered on its minutes
that A.,
"assignee" of B., presented a claim, and that the
board granted the land to "the
representatives" of B., and
the fact that A., with his family, was in possession of the land
many years ago and cultivating it are facts which tend to prove an
assignment, and as such, in an ejectment where the fact of an
assignment is in issue, should be submitted as evidence to the
jury.
After the cession, in 1803 by France of Louisiana to the United
States, Congress passed an act [
Footnote 1] establishing a board of commissioners at St.
Louis, for the purpose of settling imperfect French and Spanish
claims. The act provided that any person who had, for ten
consecutive years prior to the 20th December, 1803, been in
possession of a tract of land not owned by any other person
&c., "should be confirmed in their titles."
In 1808, one Louis Lamonde presented a claim for a tract of one
by forty arpens, "formerly the property of Auguste Conde." The
minutes of the board of November 13, 1811, disclosed the following
proceedings:
"Louis Lamonde, assignee of Auguste Conde, claiming one by forty
acres, situate in the Big Prairie District of St. Louis,
produces
Page 69 U. S. 606
a concession from St. Ange and Labuxiere, Lieutenant-Governor,
dated 10 January, 1770. [
Footnote
2] The board granted to the
representatives of Auguste
Conde forty arpens, under the provisions of the act of Congress
&c., and ordered that the same be surveyed, conformably to
possession &c."
The minutes did not record the fact that any assignment of this
land from Conde to Lamonde had been presented to the board or that
other proof was made of such conveyance.
This decision of the board, among many others, was reported to
Congress, and the title made absolute by an Act of 12 April, 1814.
In 1825, Lamonde obtained from the recorder of land titles a
certificate of the confirmation.
Hogan, claiming through Lamonde, now, A.D. 1850, brought
ejectment at St. Louis against Page for a part of this land.
Lamonde was an old inhabitant of St. Louis who had died some ten
years before the trial at a very advanced age, and there was some
evidence on the trial that he and his family cultivated this lot in
the Grand Prairie at a very early day, before the change of
government under the treaty of 1803, and evidence that by the early
laws of the region, these interests passed by parol.
The court below decided that the plaintiff was not entitled to
recover upon the evidence in the case.
Page 69 U. S. 607
MR. JUSTICE NELSON delivered the opinion of the Court.
On looking into the cases cited on the part of the plaintiff, it
will be seen that the confirmations which there appeared were
either to the assignee claimant by name or in general terms -- that
is to the original grantee and "his legal representatives" -- and
when in the latter form, it was the assignee claimant who had
presented the claim before the board and had furnished evidence
before it of his derivative title, and which had not been the
subject of dispute. The present case therefore is different from
either of the cases referred to.
A difficulty had occurred at the Land Office at an early day in
respect to the form of patent certificates and of patents arising
out of applications to have them issued in the name of the assignee
or present claimant, thereby imposing upon the office the burden of
inquiring into the derivative title presented by the applicant.
This difficulty also existed in respect to the boards of
commissioners under the acts of Congress for the settlement of
French and Spanish claims. The result seems to have been, after
consulting the Attorney General, that the Commissioner of the Land
Office recommended a formula that has since been very generally
observed -- namely the issuing of the patent certificate, and even
the patent, to the original grantee or
his legal
representatives, and the same has been adopted by the several
boards of commissioners. This formula "or his legal
representatives" embraces representatives of the original grantee
in the land by contract, such as assignees or grantees, as well as
by operation of law, and leaves the
Page 69 U. S. 608
question open to inquiry in a court of justice as to the party
to whom the certificate, patent, or confirmation, should enure.
Now upon this view of the case, we think the court below erred
in ruling as matter of law that the plaintiff was not entitled to
recover. The question in the case is whether or not the evidence
produced by the plaintiff on the trial before the jury tended to
prove that there had been an assignment by the one of forty arpens
from Conde to Lamonde, prior to his notice of the claim before the
board of commissioners in 1808. If it did, then it should have been
submitted to the jury as a question of fact, and not of law. The
transaction was ancient, and of course it could not be expected
that the evidence would be as full and specific as if it had
occurred at a more recent period.
The piece of land is but a moiety of the original concession to
Conde, and it appears that previous to the change of government and
while Conde was living, Lamonde and his family were in possession
cultivating the strip in the usual way in which these common field
lots were occupied and improved. And very soon after the
establishment of a board at the Town of St. Louis for the purpose
of hearing and settling these French and Spanish imperfect grants,
we find him presenting this claim before the board, setting up a
right to it as his own, and asking for a confirmation, and in the
proceedings of confirmation, the board speaks of it as a claim by
Lamonde, assignee of Conde.
The title did not become absolute in the
confirme,
whoever that person might be, till the passage of the act of 1814,
and in 1825, Lamonde, for he appears to have been then alive,
procured from the recorder of land titles the certificate of
confirmation.
We are of opinion that these facts should have been submitted to
the jury for them to find whether or not there had been an
assignment or transfer of interest in this strip of one by forty
arpens from Conde to Lamonde. Especially do we think that the
question should thus have been submitted as it appears that at this
early day and among these
Page 69 U. S. 609
simple people, a parol transfer of this interest was as
effectual as if it had been in writing.
Judgment reversed with costs and cause remanded with
directions to issue a new venire.
[
Footnote 1]
Act of 3 March, 1807, 2 Stat. at Large 440.
[
Footnote 2]
This concession, about which there was no dispute, was to
Conde.
