Edwards Darby
| Decision Date | 29 January 1827 |
| Citation | 6 L.Ed. 603,12 Wheat. 206,25 U.S. 206 |
| Parties | EDWARDS' Lessee against DARBY |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
This is a writ of error to a judgment of the Circuit Court for the Western District of Tennessee.
The plaintiff prosecuted an action of ejectment in that Court, to recover possession of a small tract of 20 or 30 acres of land, which had been laid out in lots and squares as part of the town of Nashville, the tenants in possession being the owners or occupiers of such lots.
In the year 1818, Patrick H. Darby appropriated, by entry and survey, all that part of the town from lot No. 141, to lot No. 165, the latter inclusive; and having obtained a grant therefor from the State of Tennessee, he, before the institution of the suit, conveyed the land by deed to Edwards. This was the plaintiff's title.
The legislature of North Carolina, by an act passed in the year 1782, entitled, 'An act for the relief of the officers and soldiers in the continental line, and for other purposes therein mentioned,' enacted, that certain bounties in land should be granted to the officers and soldiers in the line of that State, on continental establishment.
The seventh section of the act, after reciting that, 'Whereas, in May, 1780, an act passed reserving a certain tract of country to be appropriated to the aforesaid purposes, and that it had been represented to the assembly that sundry families had, before the passing of the said act, settled on the said tract of country, enacts that 640 acres of land shall be granted to each family, or head of a family, and to every single man of 21 years or upwards, (to include their improvements,) settled on said land before the first day of June, 1780, for which they shall have the right of pre-emption; provided no such grant shall include any salt licks or salt springs, which are hereby declared to be reserved as public property, together with 640 acres of the adjoining lands, for the common use and benefit of the inhabitants of that country, and not subject to future appropriations; and all the remainder of the aforesaid tract of country shall be considered as subject to partition as by this act directed.'
The eighth section appoints commissioners in behalf of the State, 'to examine and superintend the laying off the land in one or more tracts, allotted to the officers and soldiers.'
The eleventh section authorizes the commissioners to appoint one or more surveyors, for the more speedy and effectual laying off and surveying said lands.
The commissioners, in the exercise of their powers in carrying this act into effect, determined the French lick to be within the scope of its provisions, and a proper object of such reservation, and caused a survey to be made of said reservation as early as 1784, which turns out to include six hundred and sixty-seven and three quarter acres, instead of six hundred and forty, and embraces within its limits the whole of the lots laid off in the town of Nashville, and the land covered by the grant to Patrick H. Darby.
In the year 1784, the legislature of North Carolina, by its act, appropriated 200 acres, part of said reservation, for the establishment of the town of Nashville, to be laid off at the bluff on the Cumberland river, nearest the French lick; and commissioners are designated in the act to lay out the proposed town in streets, lots, and squares; to cause a plan thereof to be made out; and to sell and dispose of the lots in the town when thus laid off.
Upon the trial of the general issue in the Circuit Court, after the plaintiff had given in evidence the grant to Darby, and conveyance from Darby to Edwards, already recited, the defendants gave evidence conducing to prove that the survey made of the reservation around the French lick, by the commissioners, as early as 1784, included the whole of the land granted to Darby, and then in controversy; and also, that the commissioners, or trustees, for laying off the town of Nashville, had, in the year _____ laid off and disposed of a part of the town lots; and that, afterwards, the commissioners had laid off and disposed of the additional lots, to 165 inclusive, about the year 1789, or 1790; but it appeared that the quantity of 200 acres was thereby exceeded by 20 or 30 acres, such excess covering the lots from 141 to 165 inclusive, but the whole of which lay within the French lick reservation, as laid off by the commissioners about the year 1784.
The Court instructed the jury, that if they found the land in controversy, and within Darby's grant, was also within the boundary of the town as actually laid off, although that boundary...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Henry v. State
... ... construction is erroneous. U. S. v ... Johnston, 124 U.S. 236, 253 (8 S.Ct. 446; 31 L.Ed ... 389); Edwards' v. Darby, 12 Wheat. 206 ... (6 L.Ed. 603); U. S. v. Moore, 95 U.S. 760 ... (24 L.Ed. 588); Hahn v. U. S., 107 U.S. 402 ... (2 S.Ct ... ...
-
Chevron Inc v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc American Iron and Steel Institute v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc Ruckelshaus v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc
...5 S.Ct. 648, 649-650, 28 L.Ed. 1079 (1885); United States v. Moore, 95 U.S. 760, 763, 24 L.Ed. 588 (1878); Edwards' Lessee v. Darby, 12 Wheat. 206, 210, 6 L.Ed. 603 (1827). 15 Primary standards were defined as those whose attainment and maintenance were necessary to protect the public healt......
-
Duquesne Warehouse Co. v. Railroad Retirement Board
...it is always entitled to the most respectful consideration, and ought not to be overruled without cogent reasons. Edwards' Lessee v. Darby, 12 Wheat. 206, 210 6 L.Ed. 603; United States v. The State Bank of North Carolina, 6 Pet. 29 8 L.Ed. 308; United States v. MacDaniel, 7 Pet. 1 8 L.Ed. ......
-
Frank Fairbank v. United States
...v. Hunter, 1 Wheat. 304, 351, 4 L. ed. 97, 109; Cohen v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264, 418, 5 L. ed. 257, 294; Edwards v. Darby, 12 Wheat. 206, 210, 6 L. ed. 603, 604; United States v. State Bank, 6 Pet. 29, 39, 8 L. ed. 308, 311; United States v. Macdaniel, 7 Pet. 1, 15, 8 L. ed. 587, 592; Prigg......
-
A Hail Mary for the Administrative State: An Originalist Defense of Chevron Deference
...Court should exercise restrained review in certain 153. Id. at 44. 154. See Bamzai, supra note 95, at 943. 155. Edwards’ Lessee v. Darby, 25 U.S. 206, 210 (1827). 156. United States v. Moore, 95 U.S. 760, 763 (1877). 157. This canon has been reflected in a long line of cases. See, e.g. , U......