Lessee of William Brown and Wife, Plaintiff In Error v. Joseph Clements and Jonathan Hunt, Defendants In Error

Citation44 U.S. 650,11 L.Ed. 767,3 How. 650
PartiesLESSEE OF WILLIAM L. BROWN AND WIFE, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. JOSEPH CLEMENTS AND JONATHAN HUNT, DEFENDANTS IN ERROR
Decision Date01 January 1845
CourtUnited States Supreme Court

Tract. Quantity Price. Amount.

Date of No. of Name. Residence.

cer- cer-

tificate tificate Sec. or part of Sec. T. R. Acres. Hdth. D. C. D. C.

1832.

April 30 4,539 James Etheridge Mobile co. Southwest 22 22 4 1 W. 92 67 1 25 115 83

" 4,547 Wm D. Stone Do. S.E. sub. frac. 22 4 1 W. 110 50 1 25 138 13

On the 17th of December, 1832, a patent was issued to Stone. It granted the land described in the following preamble:

'Pre-emption certificate, No. 4,549.—The United States of America, to all to whom these present shall come, greeting:

'Whereas William D. Stone, of Mobile, has deposited in the General Land-office of the United States a certificate of the register of the Land-office at St. Stephens, whereby it appears that full payment has been made by the said William D. Stone, according to the act of Congress of the 24th of April, 1820, entitled 'An act making further provision for the sale of the public lands,' for the south-east subdivision of fractional section twenty-two, in township four, south of range one west, in the district of lands subject to sale at St. Stephens, Alabama, containing one hundred and ten acres and fifty one-hundredths of an acre, according to the official plat of the survey of said land returned to the General Land-office by the surveyor-general, which said tract has been purchased by the said William D. Stone.

'Now know ye,' &c., &c.

On the 30th of May, 1833, a patent was issued to Etheridge for the land described in the preamble.

'Pre-emption certificate, number 4,539.

'The United States of America, to all to whom these presents shall come, greeting:

'Whereas, James Etheridge, of Mobile county, Alabama, has deposited in the General Land-office of the United States a certificate of the register of the Land-office at St. Stephens, whereby it appears that payment has been made by the said James Etheridge according to the provisions of the act of Congress of the 24th April, 1820, entitled 'An act making further provisions for the sale of the public lands,' for the south-west quarter of section twenty-two, in township four, south of range one west, in the district of lands subject to sale at St. Stephens, Alabama, containing ninety-two acres and sixty-seven hundreths of an acre, according to the official plat of the survey of the said lands returned to the General Land-office by the surveyor-general, which said tract has been purchased by the said James Etheridge.

'Now know ye,' &c., &c.

In April, 1838, Brown and wife, claiming under the title of Etheridge, brought an ejectment against Clements for the east half of the south-west quarter of fractional section twenty-two. The case came on for trial at the April term, 1841, in the Circuit Court of the state of Alabama, for the county of Mobile, in the course of which the following bill of exceptions and agreement were filed.

Bill of Exceptions.

'Be it remembered, that upon the trial of this cause, the plaintiffs gave in evidence the paper hereto annexed, marked A, being a duly certified copy of a patent from the United States government to James Etheridge; and thereupon, it was admitted by the defendants, that the plaintiffs had, at the date of the demise, and time of trial, all the rights of said patentee Etheridge in the land described in the declaration. Plaintiffs also gave in...

To continue reading

Request your trial
26 cases
  • Annie Kean v. Calumet Canal Improvement Company
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • October 23, 1901
    ...v. Sutherland, 59 Mich. 455, 26 N. W. 865, which were based upon the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Brown v. Clements, 3 How. 650, 11 L. ed. 767.' It is, hence, apparent that the rule in Clute v. Fisher was based upon the construction of the law of the United States e......
  • Burnet v. Coronado Oil Gas Co
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • April 11, 1932
    ...v. Mandeville, 6 Cranch. 253, 3 L. Ed. 215; Gazzam v. Phillips, 20 How. 372, 377, 378, 15 L. Ed. 958, overruling Brown's Lessee v. Clements, 3 How. 650, 11 L. Ed. 767; Vidal v. Girard's Executors, 2 How. 127, 11 L. Ed. 205, qualifying Philadelphia Baptist Ass'n v. Hart's Executors, 4 Wheat.......
  • State v. Tuesburg Land Co.
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • June 25, 1915
    ...v. Sutherland, 59 Mich. 455, 26 N. W. 865, which were based upon the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Brown v. Clements, 3 How. 650, 11 L. Ed. 767.’ It is hence apparent that the rule in Clute v. Fisher was based upon the construction of the law of the United States exp......
  • State v. Tuesburg Land Company
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • June 25, 1915
    ... ... others. From a judgment for defendants, the State appeals ...           ... general finding as follows: "That the plaintiff is the ... owner in fee simple of all that ... eighty-hundredths of an acre, patented to William B. Biddle ... and William E. Pinney, April 4, ... Brown v. Clements (1845), 3 How. *650, 11 ... L.Ed ... the error into which it inadvertently fell in Clute ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT