Colin Mitchel v. United States
Decision Date | 01 January 1841 |
Parties | COLIN MITCHEL and others, Appellants, v. UNITED STATES, Appellees |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
APPEAL from the Superior Court of the Middle District of Florida. In the supreme court, at January term 1835 (9 Pet. 711), the case of Colin Mitchell and others, appellants, against the United States, was argued and determined, on an appeal from the superior court of East Florida. It was a claim to lands in East Florida, the title to which was derived from grants from the Creek and Seminole Indians, ratified by the authorities of Spain, before the cession of Florida to the United States. The claim was confirmed by the court, with the exception of so much of the tract surveyed between the rivers Wakulla and St. Marks, conveyed to John Forbes & Company, in 1811, as included the fortress of St. Marks, and the territory directly and immediately adjacent and appurtenant thereto; which was reserved to the United States.
On the 30th day of January 1836, Collin Mitchel and others, the appellants in the supreme court, filed in the superior court of Middle Florida, the decree and mandate of the supreme court, as follows:
Subsequently, Colin Mitchel and others filed a bill in the said court, wherein they claimed the lands to the walls of the fort of St. Marks, on all sides; and prayed confirmation thereof to the said walls of the fort as aforesaid, to be held, as it was, under the dominion of Spain, according to the treaty of cession, and the proceedings under it in other cases. On the 14th of February 1838, they filed an amended petition in the same court, in which they asserted the fee in the land on which the fort of St. Marks was erected, to have been and still to be in themselves, whilst they admitted the right of the government of the United States, for the purposes of a fort; and they, therefore, prayed that the fee of the land covered by the fort, as well as that adjoining and appurtenant, should be decreed to them, whilst the use thereof, for the purposes of a fort, might be reserved, by a decree of that court, to the government of the United States.
On the 14th of February 1838, the attorney of the United States for the district of Middle Florida, filed his answer to the bill and amended petition; in which, although he denied the facts and allegations therein set forth, he alleged, on the part of the United States, that the matters which were to be ascertained and decided by the court, did not arise out of said petition and amended petition, and that it should not be governed or regulated in the investigations to be made thereby; that the power and authority of the court to hold cognisance of the case, after their former final decree therein, was not in anywise founded upon the filing of said petition, but entirely and exclusively derived from, and founded upon, the decree of the supreme court of the United States, at January term 1835; by and in which the court were directed to ascertain certain questions of fact; and the said petition and amended petition being, therefore, supererogatory, it was not necessary for the said United States of America to finally answer the same, or create any issues of law or fact thereupon. The attorney of the United States, therefore, prayed that the said petition and amended petition might be dismissed; and that the court would proceed to decide the questions referred to it by the supreme court, according to, and in pursuance of, the four alternative rules prescribed in the same, without reference to the petition and amended petition.
On the 30th of June 1838, the superior court for the middle district of Florida decreed, on the proofs taken, and after argument, that the boundaries of the territory ceded by the Indians to Spain, for the purpose of erecting the fortress of St. Marks, could not now be ascertained; that no evidence could now be obtained to designate the extent of the adjacent lands, which were considered as annexed to said fortress, by the crown of Spain, or the commandant of said post. But that there was sufficient evidence of the military usage of Spain, to determine the extent of land adjacent to forts in Florida, which were usually attached to said forts; that the extent of such reservations was determined by a radius of 1500 Castilian varas from the salient angles of the covered way, all round the works, or, there being no covered way, from the salient angles of the exterior line of the ditch. The court, therefore, decreed, that the lands adjacent to the fortress of St. Marks, to be...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Apalachicola Land & Development Co. v. Mcrae
...of record in case of Mitchel v. United States, in Florida Supreme Court Library; Mitchel v. United States, 15 Pet. (U. S.) 52, text 85, 10 L.Ed. 658; 2 White's New Recompilation, The patent issued by the United States, confirming the Indian-Spanish grants to Colin Mitchel et al., is as foll......
-
Yeast v. Pru
...it was erected but a considerable extent of land surrounding it was in any view a part of the public domain, and passed as such to the United States. Mitchel v. United States, 15 Pet. 52, 89, 'The Spanish understanding of the prerequisite designation is well illustrated by the following pas......
-
Metcalf v. City of Watertown
...68 F. 859 METCALF v. CITY OF WATERTOWN. No. 233.United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.July 10, 1895 [68 F. 860] ... Livingston, 13 Pet. 359; West v ... Brashear, 14 Pet. 51; Mitchel v. U.S. 15 Pet ... 52; U.S. v. Fossatt, 21 How. 446; Railroad Co ... ...
-
PEAVY-BYRNES LUMBER COMPANY v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
...v. Ry. Co., 249 U. S. 134. 6 Rio Grande, etc., Co. v. United States, 215 U. S. 266. 7 Martin v. Peoples Bank, 115 Fed. 226. 8 Mitchell v. United States, 15 Pet. 52; Mackall v. Richards, 116 U. S. ...
-
Florida land titles and British, not just Spanish, origins.
...478 U.S. v. Wiggins (1840) 14 Peters 334, 39 U.S. 334 Buyck v. U.S. (1841) 15 Peters 215, 40 U.S. 215 Mitchel v. U.S. (1841) 15 Peters 52, 40 U.S. 52 O'Hara v. U.S. (1841) 15 Peters 275, 40 U.S. 275 U.S. v. Delespine (1841) 15 Peters 319, 40 U.S. 319 U.S. v. Delespine's Heirs (1841) 15 Pete......