The United States, Appellants v. the Mayor, Aldermen and Inhabitants of the Cities of Philadelphia and New Orleans

• Citation: 52 U.S. 609,13 L.Ed. 834,11 How. 609
• Parties: THE UNITED STATES, APPELLANTS, v. THE MAYOR, ALDERMEN, AND INHABITANTS OF THE CITIES OF PHILADELPHIA AND NEW ORLEANS
• Decision Date: 01 December 1850
• Court: United States Supreme Court

52 U.S. 609

11 How. 609

13 L.Ed. 834

THE UNITED STATES, APPELLANTS, v. THE MAYOR, ALDERMEN, AND INHABITANTS OF THE CITIES OF

PHILADELPHIA AND NEW ORLEANS.

December Term, 1850

THIS was an appeal from the District Court of the United States for the District of Louisiana.

It was a petition filed by the corporate authorities of the cities of Philadelphia and New Orleans, claiming a large body of land under a grant alleged to have been made by the Baron de Carondelet, the Spanish governor of Louisiana, in 1796 and 1797, to the Baron de Bastrop.

All the title-papers are set forth in the opinion of the court, and it is unnecessary to repeat them. The derivation of title to the petitioners in this case is explained in their petition, which, being short, may be inserted.

'To the Honorable T. H. McCaleb, Judge of the District Court of the United States for the District of Louisiana.

'The petition of the Mayor, Aldermen, and Citizens of Philadelphia, and of the Mayor, Aldermen, and Inhabitants of the City of New Orleans, respectfully represents:

'That in the year 1795 or 1796, in the now State of Louisiana, of which the Baron de Carondelet was governor-general and vice-patron, a grant was made to the Baron de Bastrop, by the proper authorities, of a certain tract of land, twelve leagues square, lying on the Ouachita and Bayou Siard, to be located and surveyed, which was done in due and legal form, as by the annexed plot of survey, marked A, will more fully appear, which was afterwards approved and confirmed; your petitioners, for fuller information, refer to the documents published by authority of Congress, in Vol. II. State Papers, title Public Lands, page 772, No. 40; as also to the volume of land laws, published by Matthew St. Clair Clarke, page 951, &c., &c.

'Your petitioners further show, that on or about the 25th day of January, 1804, the said Baron de Bastrop conveyed to a certain Abraham Morehouse two thirds of the said tract, which was afterwards, by a compromise between the said Bastrop, Morehouse, and a certain Charles Lynch, modified so that Morehouse became entitled to four tenths, and Lynch to

six tenths of said grant; which said six tenths were afterwards conveyed to Edward Livingston, on the 18th day of September, 1807, as by documents marked B, C, D, E, and F, respectively, will appear.

'And they also show, that on or about the 5th day of March, 1810, at a sale made by order of T. C. Lewis, parish judge of the parish of Ouachita, 50,000 acres of the part assigned, and belonging to Abraham Morehouse, were seized and sold for taxes, when a certain Andrew Latting became the purchaser, and afterwards transferred to Andrew Morehouse and George Y. Morehouse, sons and lawful heirs of the said Abraham, and to Sophia L. Morehouse, Charles F. Morehouse, Ann M. Morehouse, and Eliza C. Morehouse, children also of the said Abraham, each the amount of 8,000 acres out of the 50,000 sold for taxes. That in 1813, the said Morehouse died, and thereby the remainder of the said property passed to his wife, Abigail Young, and her two sons, Andrew and George, and that on or about the 13th of January, 1824, Stephen Girard purchased the shares of said Sophia L., Charles F., Ann M., and Eliza C., and in May, 1825, he purchased of George the 8,000 so to him conveyed; that the 2,000 remaining were, by the said Latting, sold to Nathan Morse, in his own right and as attorney for R. R. Goelet, who conveyed the same to a certain Thomas Lovell, who sold them to Stephen Girard, as will more fully appear by the documents herewith filed, and marked G, H, I, J, K, KK, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R.

'That in the autumn of the year 1815, Andrew, the elder son, died, unmarried and without issue, whereby his estate passed to his mother, Abigail, and his surviving brother, George.

'That the said George, as well in his own right as in virtue of a power of attorney, duly executed by his mother, Abigail, constituted and appointed a certain William Griffith, of Burlington, in the State of New Jersey, their agent and trustee, for the purpose of selling and disposing of their interest in the said lands, which he accordingly did, on or about the 29th of January, 1822, to the said Stephen Girard, James Lyle, and Robert E. Griffith; as also of 10,000 acres of the same parcel, held by the said Wm. Griffith and Richard S. Coxe, of Georgetown, District of Columbia, about the 23d of January, 1824; that afterwards, viz. at the October term, 1827, of the Seventh Judicial District Court, in the parish of Ouachita, a partition was decreed between the said Girard, Lyle, and Griffith, whereby the portion of Girard was separated and set apart, as by said decree and the documents marked Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, and X, herewith filed, will more fully appear. And your

petitioners further show, that the portion assigned, as above stated, to Edward Livingston, an amount of 12,500 acres, was, by the said Girard, purchased, as per act herewith filed, and marked AA, about the 6th of November, 1819, from a certain John Carrier, of Baltimore, who purchased it from Samuel McKean of said city, being part of a larger parcel conveyed by the said Edward Livingston to Stephen Wante, by act marked CC.

'And they further show, that on or about the 22d of November, 1824, the said Stephen Girard purchased from John Hughes, of the parish of Ouachita, 4,300 acres of the same land, which said Hughes had purchased at sheriff's sale, being a part of that assigned to Andrew Morehouse, as appears by the document marked DD, herewith filed.

'And they further show, that on or about the 9th day of February, 1824, the said Stephen Girard purchased at sheriff's sale, in the case of Brooks, Syndic, v. G. Hamilton, 23,694 acres, which the said Hamilton purchased from Andrew Y. Morehouse, as by document EE, herewith filed, more fully appears.

'That on or about the 11th day of February, 1825, the said Stephen Girard purchased from Cesar McGlaughlin 4,000 acres of the same parcel, which the said McGlaughlin had purchased at the sheriff's sale in the said suit of Brooks, Syndic, v. Hamilton, which land the said Hamilton had acquired from the said Andrew Morehouse, in proof whereof he files the document FF.

'That on or about the 29th of September, 1807, the said Edward Livingston transferred to John Adair a portion of said lands, amounting to 75,000 acres.

'That on or about the 17th of October, 1807, the said John Adair conveyed to T. B. Franklin, of Ouachita, 2,340 acres of said land; and by act bearing date 11th February, 1828, the said T. B. Franklin conveyed the same to Stephen Girard, as per acts marked GG, HH, II, herewith filed, will more fully appear.

'That by act bearing date 23d February, 1808, the said Adair sold the Curry 10,000 acres of this part, which Curry conveyed to the said Girard on or about the 9th day of March, 1829; and, lastly, that on or about the 10th day of July, 1827, the said John Adair conveyed his remaining interest, amounting to 36,549 arpents, to the said Stephen Girard, whereby the latter became possessed of all the portion conveyed by the said Edward Livingston to the said John Adair; all which will more fully appear by documents LL, MM, and NN.

'Your petitioners further show, that the said Stephen Girard, having first made his will, departed this life on or about the ___ day of _____

'That by his said will, which has been duly proved, and a copy of which is herewith filed, and marked OO, he bequeathed to your petitioners the whole of his above-described property; from all which acts and deeds it results that your petitioners are the true and lawful owners of the said above-described portions of the Bastrop grant; they allege that there is no other person or persons claiming the same, or any part thereof, by a different title from that of your petitioners; nor are there any person or persons holding possession of any part thereof otherwise than by the lease or permission of your petitioners. But that the United States deny their title thereto, and claim the whole of the lands contained within the said Bastrop grant as part of the public domain.

'That the said title of the Baron de Bastrop has been partially submitted to the board of land commissioners, and by them reported on unfavorably.

'Wherefore your petitioners pray that the validity of their title may be inquired into and decided upon; to which purpose the United States may be cited by their representative, the district attorney, and that they may be confirmed in their said title, with all other and further relief.

'GEO. STRAWBRIDGE,

P. SOULE,

Of counsel for the cities of Philadelphia and N. Orleans.'

There were ninety-six pages of exhibits filed with the petition. It is not necessary to give the substance either of them or of the testimony which was afterwards collected by the petitioners and the United States, because the question was decided entirely upon the construction of the grant.

In the progress of the case an order was made, on the motion of the claimants, for a jury to try certain disputed facts, the court reserving to itself 'the decision upon the question of the validity or sufficiency of said grant under the colonial laws and regulations of Spain, in force in Louisiana at the date of the grant.'

On the 8th of December, 1847, the following proceedings took place.

'The trial of this cause was to-day resumed. The argument for the plaintiffs was opened by H. Strawbridge, Esq., and closed by P. Soul e, Esq.; for the defendants, by Thomas J. Durant, United States District Attorney. The argument being closed, the court charged the jury; Silvain Peyroux being appointed foreman, they retired to consider of their verdict.

'After consultation, they returned into court with a verdict in the words and figures following, to wit:——

'From and according to the evidence adduced in this case, we, the jury, find the following verdict:——

'1. That, in the year 1796...