Colin Mitchel, Robert Mitchel, In His Own Right, and As Assignee of the Estate and Effects of the Mercantile House Heretofore Trading Under the Firm of Carnochan and Mitchel, and As Trustee of the Creditors of Said Firm, and Also of Richard Carnochan, William Calder, Benjamin Marshall, Benjamin Rogers, John Williamson, the Heirs and Legal Representatives of John Nish Deceased, and James Innerarity, Appellants v. the United States

• Decision Date: 01 January 1835
• Citation: 34 U.S. 711,9 Pet. 711,9 L.Ed. 283
• Parties: COLIN MITCHEL, ROBERT MITCHEL, IN HIS OWN RIGHT, AND AS ASSIGNEE OF THE ESTATE AND EFFECTS OF THE MERCANTILE HOUSE HERETOFORE TRADING UNDER THE FIRM OF CARNOCHAN AND MITCHEL, AND AS TRUSTEE OF THE CREDITORS OF SAID FIRM, AND ALSO OF RICHARD CARNOCHAN, WILLIAM CALDER, BENJAMIN MARSHALL, BENJAMIN W. ROGERS, JOHN P. WILLIAMSON, THE HEIRS AND LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF JOHN M'NISH DECEASED, AND JAMES INNERARITY, APPELLANTS v. THE UNITED STATES
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

34 U.S. 711

9 Pet. 711

9 L.Ed. 283

COLIN MITCHEL, ROBERT MITCHEL, IN HIS OWN RIGHT, AND AS

ASSIGNEE OF THE ESTATE AND EFFECTS OF THE MERCANTILE

HOUSE HERETOFORE TRADING UNDER THE FIRM OF CARNOCHAN

AND MITCHEL, AND AS TRUSTEE OF THE CREDITORS OF SAID

FIRM, AND ALSO OF RICHARD CARNOCHAN, WILLIAM CALDER,

BENJAMIN MARSHALL, BENJAMIN W. ROGERS, JOHN P.

WILLIAMSON, THE HEIRS AND LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF JOHN

M'NISH DECEASED, AND JAMES INNERARITY, APPELLANTS

v. THE UNITED STATES.

January Term, 1835

[Syllabus from pages 711-715 intentionally omitted] APPEAL from the superior court of middle Florida.

The appellants, on the 18th day of October 1828, presented to the superior court of middle Florida, their petition under the authority of the sixth section of the act of congress passed on the 23d of May 1828, entitled an act supplementary to the several acts providing for the settlement and confirmation of the private land claims in the territory of Florida; and of the act of 1824, referred to in the said act, authorizing claimants in Missouri to institute proceedings to try the validity of their titles.

The appellants claimed title to a tract of land containing one million two hundred thousand acres, in the territory of Florida; the greater part of which was situated between the rivers Appalachicola and the St Mark's, comprehending all the intervening sea coast, and the islands adjacent.

The title was asserted to be held under deeds from the Creek and Seminole Indians to Panton, Leslie and Company, to John Forbes and Company, and to John Forbes, and confirmed by the authorities of Spain.

These lands, the petitioners alleged, were granted by the Indian tribes, as an indemnity from the Spanish government and from those Indians, for losses sustained by them in prosecuting a trade with the Indians, under the special and exclusive license of Spain.

The Indian grants were dated on the 25th May and the 22d August 1804, and the 2d August 1806, and were alleged to have been confirmed by governor Folch, the governor of the province.

The facts of the case, and all the documents on which the title of the petitioners was claimed to rest, with the evidence in the case, are fully stated in the opinion of the court.

The answer of the district attorney stated: that the commissioners under the act 'for the settlement of private land claims, and for the confirmation thereof' were instructed to report, and not to decide upon large claims; that the claim of the petitioners was reported upon by the commissioners, and their report laid before congress—but it was denied that the documents presented to the said commissioners and by them reported, were, by the said report, 'admitted to be genuine.' The title of the appellant is invalid. Congress did not confirm or adopt the report of the commissioners upon this claim, but referred all claims not annulled by the treaty of cession, nor by the decree of the king of Spain ratifying the same, nor reported by the commissioners as antedated or forged, to the decision of the judiciary.

The cause was heard in the superior court of middle Florida, on the evidence adduced by the petitioners and the United States and on public documents, all of which were sent up with the record; and was finally disposed of by a decree of the judge of that court, entered on the 2d of November 1830, dismissing the petition.

The petitioners appealed to this court. The appeal was entered to January term 1831.

At former terms of this court, on the motions of the counsel for the United States, the case was postponed to enable the government of the United States to procure papers from Madrid and from Havana, which were considered important and necessary in the cause. These motions were always resisted by the counsel for the appellants.

At January term 1834, the case was continued, under an order of the court that it should not be argued before the 2d of February 1835.

On the 9th of January, Mr Butler, attorney-general of the United States, moved the court to postpone the hearing of the case until later in the term than the day fixed for the same; alleging that the documents which had been expected from Havana had not arrived, and that the government had despatched a special messenger for them, whose return was expected before the 25th of February, during the term. The court refused to hear the motion until the case should be called, on or after the 2d of February. Afterwards, on the 9th of February, the motion was renewed on the part of the United States, by the attorney-general, and was overruled; the court not thinking it necessary to hear the counsel for the appellants against it.

The cause then came on, and was argued by Mr White and Mr Berrien, for the appellants; and by the attorney-general and Mr Call, for the United States.

For the appellants, the following points were submitted to the court.

1. That the Indian sales of 1804 and 1811, and the several acts in confirmation thereof by the governor of West Florida, vest in the grantees a full and complete title to the land in controversy.

2. That the king of Spain was bound, in good faith, to indemnify the house of Forbes & Co. for the losses sustained by them in their traffic with the Indian tribes; that the satisfaction of the claims of that house, which was effected by these sales, and the consequent release of the obligation of the king of Spain to indemnify them, constituted a sufficient consideration to the Spanish crown for any right of pre-emption or otherwise which it might have had in these lands.

3. That these sales, having been made with the knowledge, assent and previous approbation of the authorities of Louisiana and West Florida; having been subsequently ratified and confirmed by the civil and military governor of the latter province; having been notified to the captain-general of Cuba, and by him to the king, and not having been disapproved by either: that these several acts and omissions amount to an acquiescence on the part of the king of Spain and his legitimate authorities; which, according to the laws and usages of that kingdom, would vest a valid title in the grantees.

4. That the decision of the captain-general of Cuba, on the petition of John Forbes, setting forth his title to these lands, and praying leave to sell the same, is a judicial decision upon the validity of that title by the highest legitimate authority of that captain-generalcy, to which West Florida was an appendage; and cannot be drawn into question in any other tribunal.

5. That the grantees, and those claiming under them, have had legal possession, in good faith, by just title, since the date of the respective grants, which constitute a title by prescription under the laws of Spain.

6. That the title thus subsisting in the grantees, by the aforesaid sales and acts of confirmation, by the acquiescence after notice, of the king of Spain and his legitimate authorities, by the judicial decision of the captain-general of Cuba, and by the right of prescription, at the date of the delivery of the Floridas to the United States; was a valid and legal title, which was recognized and confirmed by the treaty of cession.

For the United States, it was contended by Mr Butler and Mr Call:

I. Admitting it to be true, for the sake of argument.

1. That the house of Forbes & co. had rendered important services to the Spanish government, and had well founded claims on its bounty;

2. That the king of Spain was bound, in good faith, to indemnify the house, for the losses sustained by them in their traffic with the Indians;

3. That the government of the United States had knowledge of the existence of that house, of its claims on Spain, and of the title on which the present suit is founded;

4. That the vacant and ungranted lands in the Floridas, even if the present claim be confirmed, will yet be more than the government of the United States, at the time of the cession, expected to receive; and,

5. That other equitable circumstances exist, which entitle the claim to a favourable regard.

Still it is contended, on the part of the United States, that no valid reason can be found, in either or all of these circumstances, for reversing the decree of the court below.

That decree must be affirmed, unless it can be shown that the claimants, at the time of the cession, had a legal right to the lands in question; acquired either,

1. By virtue of a grant or concession, made before the 24th of January 1818, by his catholic majesty, or by his lawful authorities; or,

2. By virtue of some other valid title, known to, and recognized by the laws of Florida.

II. The most important of the suggestions above referred to, viz. the alleged liability of the king of Spain to indemnify Forbes & Co. for their losses, &c., is not correct in point of fact. Neither the law of nations, nor any special promise, nor any existing treaty, imposed on him any such obligation. Besides, if such obligation existed, the duty of auditing and settling the accounts belonged along to the intendancy of the province; and the Spanish government could not be bound for the payments of any particular demand, on the mere admission of the Indians.

III. The claim, in the present case, though of land within the territorial limits of the Floridas, does not profess to be ounded on any original substantive grant made by the king of Spain or his officers; but on cessions made by Indian tribes, and on alleged ratifications and confirmations thereof, and acquiescence therein, by the Spanish authorities. In this respect, the present case differs from all the cases hitherto submitted to this court.

IV. The Indian deeds to Panton, Leslie & Co. did not, either in themselves, or with the confirmation thereof by governor Folch, convey to the grantees therein named, any legal right to the lands in question.

1. According to the laws of Spain, in force in the Floridas, the absolute title in the soil, in all the lands described in the...