De La Croix Chamberlain
Decision Date | 14 March 1827 |
Citation | 25 U.S. 599,12 Wheat. 599,6 L.Ed. 741 |
Parties | DE LA CROIX against CHAMBERLAIN |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
This was an action of ejectment brought by the plaintiff in error against the defendant, in the District Court of the United States for the district of Alabama. The plaintiff excepted to certain opinions of the Court given in the progress of the trial, and his exceptions having been signed and sealed by the judge, a verdict and judgment was rendered against him; which judgment and exceptions are brought before the Court by writ of error.
The questions in the case arise entirely out of the bill of exceptions. It states, that These are the opinions excepted to by the plaintiff. A history of the case, somewhat different, is given by the clerk in the transcript of the record sent up. But it was no part of his duty, nor had he authority, as clerk to state upon the record what was offered in evidence on the trials, or what opinions were expressed by the Court in relation to the evidence, otherwise than as stated in the bill of exceptions itself. The evidence given on the trial of an issue at common law is no part of the record, unless made a part of it by bill of exceptions, demurrer to evidence, or case agreed by parties, and entered of record. Nor are the opinions of the Court, given incidentally, in the progress of the trial, except so made by bill of exceptions, any part of the record. The statements of the clerk, so far as they are contrary to the statements verified by the seal of the judge, must be wholly disregarded.
The concession referred to in the bill of exception is, upon its face, not a grant, nor a survey, but it is, as is expressed in the bill of exceptions, only a warrant, or order, authorizing the deputy surveyor to make a survey, and to report the survey when made to the intendant, in order to found a grant upon it. The order of survey bears date the ___ day of _____ 1806. At that date the Spanish authorities were in the actual possession of Mobile, where the land lies; and they claimed it as part of the Floridas, then belonging to the Spanish crown. The United States claimed it as part of Louisiana. But it is not necessary to investigate these conflicting claims. The United States have since obtained the Floridas by purchase and cession from Spain, without having previously settled the controverted boundary between the Floridas, as claimed by Spain, and Louisiana, as claimed by the United States.
A question of disputed boundary between two sovereign independent nations, is, indeed, much more properly a subject for diplomatic discussion, and of treaty, than of judicial investigation. If the United States and Spain had settled this dispute by treaty, before the United States extinguished the claim of Spain to the Floridas, the boundary fixed by such treaty would have concluded all parties. But as that was not done, the United States have never, so far as we can discover, distinguished between the concessions of land made by the Spanish authorities within the disputed territory, whilst Spain was in the actual possession of it, from concessions of a similar character made by Spain within the acknowledged limits. We will not, therefore, raise any question upon the ground of the want of authority in...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Yeast v. Pru
... ... itself discharge that duty, or delegate it to the judicial ... department. De la Croix v. Chamberlain, 12 Wheat ... 599, 601, 602; Chouteau v. Eckhart, 2 How. 344, 374; ... Tameling v. United States Freehold Co., 93 U.S. 644, ... ...
-
Crittenden Cattle Co. v. Ainsa
... ... itself discharge that duty, or delegate it to the judicial ... department. De la Croix v. Chamberlain, 12 ... Wheat. 599, 601, 602, 6 L.Ed. 741; Chouteau v ... Eckhart, 2 How. 344, 374, 11 L.Ed. 293; ... Tameling v. United States ... ...
-
Ainsa v. New Mexico & Arizona Railroad Co.
... ... court. It is not our province to usurp the functions of the ... "political department" of the government (De ... La Croix v. Chamberlain, 12 Wheat. 599) [4 ... Ariz. 240] or of its delegate, the private land court. After ... proper confirmation, either by Congress or ... ...
-
Santiago Ainsa v. New Mexico Arizona Railroad Company
...and its right to establish tribunals to investigate and pronounce upon their fairness and validity.' De la Croix v. Chamberlain (1827), 12 Wheat. 599, 601, 6 L. ed. 741, 742. Even grants which were complete and perfect at the time of the cession may be required by Congress to have their gen......