Martin v. Marks

Decision Date01 October 1877
Citation97 U.S. 345,24 L.Ed. 940
PartiesMARTIN v. MARKS
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Mr. Edward C. Ingersoll and Mr. F. P. Cuppy for the plaintiff in error.

Mr. Thomas J. Durant and Mr. C. W. Hornor, contra.

MR. JUSTICE MILLER delivered the opinion of the court.

This was an action in the nature of ejectment, brought by Marks, the plaintiff below, who asserted title under the swampland act of Sept. 28, 1850, and the earlier act of March 2, 1849, in regard to the same class of lands in the State of Louisiana. The defendant relied on a patent from the United States, dated May 20, 1873. The evidence of plaintiff's title under the act of 1850, which is all we shall now consider, is as follows:——

'NORTH-WESTERN DISTRICT, LA.

'A.—List of swamp land unfit for cultivation, selected as inuring to the State of Louisiana under the provisions of an act of Congress approved 28th September, 1850, excepting such as are rightfully claimed or owned by individuals.

'To. 20 N., R. 14 W., west side of Red River.

Estimated

Parts of section. Section. Area. area. Remarks.

All of 7 640.00

'SURVEYOR-GENERAL'S OFFICE,

'DONALDSONVILLE, LA., May 18, 1852.

'Examined and approved.

(Sig.) 'R. W. BOYD,

'Surveyor-General, La.'

To this was attached a certificate of S. S. Burdett, Commissioner of the General Land-Office, dated Department of the Interior, General Land-Office, April 30, 1875, that the foregoing was truly copied from a list of the swamp lands returned to that office by the surveyor-general of Louisiana. This was followed by sufficient evidence of title under the State of Louisiana. Neither this certificate nor any thing in the record shows precisely when this list was filed in the General Land-Office at Washington.

In Emigrant Company v. County of Wright (supra, p. 339) we had occasion to comment on the failure of the Secretary of the Interior to make out and certify to the States lists of the swamp lands to which they were severally entitled, and the expedients to which they were compelled to resort to obtain the evidence of their title to those lands. We also held in previous cases that, when this was ascertained and the lands were identified by proper authority, the title related to the date of the grant, namely, Sept. 28, 1850, and superseded any subsequent grant or evidence of title issuing from the United States. Railroad Company v. Smith, 9 Wall. 95; French v. Fyan et al., 93 U. S. 169.

The above certificate of what took place in the office of the surveyor-general shows what was the course adopted in Louisiana to secure the identification and lists of swamp lands in that State, and a similar course was elsewhere pursued. But these selections, though approved by the surveyor-general, who was merely a local officer, still lacked the authentication of the Secretary of the Interior, to whom alone Congress had confided the duty of confirming them, or making them for himself.

It will be observed that the selection in the present case was approved by the surveyor-general in May, 1852. It seems that, seven years after the passage of the swamp-land grant, this failure of the Secretary to act had become a grievance, for which Congress deemed it necessary to provide a remedy, by the act of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
24 cases
  • United States v. Lee Wilson & Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Arkansas
    • 20 d5 Fevereiro d5 1914
    ... ... [Copyrighted Material Omitted] ... [214 F. 635] ... [Copyrighted Material Omitted] ... [214 F. 636] ... W. H ... Martin, U.S. Atty., of Hot Springs, Ark., Willis N. Mills, of ... San Francisco, Cal., and J. A. Tellier, of Little Rock, Ark., ... Special Asst. Attys ... the title of this area which had already passed to the state ... by the act of 1857. Martin v. Marks, 97 U.S. 346, 24 ... L.Ed. 940, is relied on as conclusive of this claim. In that ... case Mr. Justice Miller, speaking for the court, declared ... ...
  • Little v. Williams
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • 22 d1 Junho d1 1908
    ...U.S. 60; 195 U.S. 480; 173 U.S. 473; 164 U.S. 559; 168 U.S. 589; 71 Ark. 491; 190 U.S. 301; 104 F. 18; 9 Wall. 89; Id. 95; 93 U.S. 169; 97 U.S. 345; U.S. 488; 138 U.S. 134; 6 Fed. Stat. Ann. 411, § 2488. No dereliction of duty can be charged to the Secretary of the Interior with reference t......
  • Simpson v. Ricketts
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • 13 d1 Fevereiro d1 1939
    ... ... overflow ... Conners ... v. Meservey, 76 Iowa 691, 39 N.W. 388; Young v ... Hanson, 95 Iowa 717, 64 N.W. 654; Martin v ... Marks, 97 U.S. 345, 24 L.Ed. 940; Wright v ... Roseberry, 121 U.S. 488, 30 L.Ed. 1039; Irwin v. San ... Francisco Savings Union, 136 U.S ... ...
  • In re Tampa Suburban R. Co
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • 20 d1 Dezembro d1 1897
    ...thereafter to be considered were those of identification. Railroad Co. v. Smith, 9 Wall. 95; French v. Fyan, 93 U. S. 169; Martin v. Marks, 97 U. S. 345; Rice v. Railroad Co., 110 U. S. 695, 4 Sup. Ct. 177; Wright v. Roseberry, 121 U. S. 488, 7 Sup. Ct. 985; Tubbs v. Wilhoit, 138 U. S. 134,......
  • 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