Watts v. Lindsey

• Decision Date: 01 March 1822
• Citation: 20 U.S. 158,5 L.Ed. 423,7 Wheat. 158
• Parties: WATTS v. LINDSEY'S Heirs and Others
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

20 U.S. 158

5 L.Ed. 423

7 Wheat. 158

WATTS v. LINDSEY'S Heirs and Others.

March 1, 1822

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Ohio.

Feb. 10th.

This cause was argued by Mr. Doddridge for the appellant, and by Mr. Brush for the respondents.

March 1st.

Mr. Justice TODD delivered the opinion of the Court.

This controversy arises from entries for lands in theVirginia military reservation, lying between the Scioto and Little Miami Rivers, in the district of Ohio.

The plaintiff in the court below, (Watts,) exhibited his bill in Chancery for the purpose of compelling the respondents to surrender the legal title, acquired under an elder grant founded on a surveyor's entry, than the one under which he derives his title.

The entry, set forth in the bill, and claimed by the plaintiff, is in the following words: '7th August, 1787. Captain Ferdinand O'Neal enters 1000 acres, &c. on the waters of the Ohio, beginning at the northwest corner of Stephen T. Mason's entry, No. 654, thence with his line, east 400 poles, north 400 poles, west 400 poles, south 400 poles.'

The entry of Stephen T. Mason, referred to in the above entry, is in the following words:

'7th August, 1787. Stephen T. Mason, assignee, &c. enters 1000 acres of land on part of a military warrant, No. 2012, on the waters of the Ohio, beginning 640 poles north from the mouth of the third creek running into the Ohio above the mouth of the Little Miami River; thence running west 160 poles; north 400 poles; east 400 poles; south 400 poles; thence to the beginning.'

The respondents, in their answers, deny the validity of O'Neal's entry; allege that it is vague and uncertain, and that the survey made on it includes no part of the land described in the entry, and if properly surveyed would not interfere with any part of the land to which they claim title; that the creek selected by the complainant as the third creek, in the entry of Mason, on which that of O'Neal depends, is not in truth and in fact, the third creek running into the Ohio above the mouth of the Little Miami River; but that another is.

The depositions of several witnesses were taken, and other exhibits filed in the cause. Upon a final hearing in the Circuit Court, a decree was pronounced dismissing the plaintiff's bill.

The cause is now brought into this Court by appeal, and the principal question to be decided is, whether from the allegations and proofs in the cause, the entry claimed by the plaintiff can be sustained upon sound construction, and legal principles arising out of the land laws applicable thereto.

Before we go into an examination of that question, we will dispose of some preliminary objections made by the counsel for the respondents. They were that attested copies of the entries and patent referred to, and made exhibits in the bill are not in the record: that there does not appear in the record any assignment, or proof of an assignment from O'Neal to the plaintiff. Nor does it appear from the platt where the entry of O'Neal was actually surveyed, nor does it designate the creeks running into the Ohio above the mouth of the Little Miami River, so as to ascertain the third creek.

Some of these objections seem to be well founded, and might induce the Court to dismiss the bill, but such dismission should be without prejudice to the mencing of any other suit the party might choose to bring; the effect of which would be only turning the parties out of Court, without deciding the merits of the cause. We have therefore attentively examined the record, and are of opinion it contains enough to...