Fairfax Devisee v. Hunter Lessee

Decision Date27 February 1812
Citation11 U.S. 603,3 L.Ed. 453,7 Cranch 603
PartiesFAIRFAX'S DEVISEE v. HUNTER'S LESSEE
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Absent. MARSHALL, Ch. J. and WASHINGTON, J.

THIS was a writ of error to the Court of appeals of Virginia in an action of ejectment involving the construction of the treaties between Great Britain and the United States, the judgment of the Court of appeals being against the right claimed under those treaties.

The state of the facts, as settled by the case agreed, was as follows:

1. The title the late lord Fairfax to all that entire territory and tract of land, called the Northern Neck of Virginia, the nature of his estate in the same as he inherited it, and the purport of the several charters and grants from the kings Charles II and James II, under which his ancestor held, are agreed to be truly recited in an act of the assembly of Virginia, passed in the year 1736, [vide Rev. Code, v. 1. ch. 3, p. 5] 'for the confirming and better securing the titles to lands in the Northern Neck, held under the right honorable Thomas lord Fairfax,' &c.

From the recitals of the act, it appears that the first letters patent (1 Car. 2.) granting the land in question to Ralph lord Hopton and others, being surrendered in order to have the grant renewed with alterations, the earl of St. Albans and others (partly survivors of, and partly purchasers under the first patentees) obtained new letters patent (2d Car. 2,) for the same land and appurtenances, and by the same description, but with additional privileges and reservations, &c.

The estate granted is described to be, 'All that entire tract, territory or parcel of land, situate, &c. and bounded by, and within the heads of the rivers Tappachannock, &c. together with the rivers themselves, and all the islands, & c. and all woods, underwoods, timber, &c. mines of gold and silver, lead, tin, &c. and quarries of stone and coal, &c. to have, hold, and enjoy the said tract of land, &c. to the said [vatentees] their heirs and assigns forever, to their only use and behoof, and to no other use, intent or purpose whatsoever.'

There is reserved to the crown, the annual rent of 6l. 13s. 4d. 'in lieu of all services and demands whatsoever;' also one fifth part of all gold, and one tenth part of all silver mines.

To the absolute title and seizin in fee, of the land and its appurtenances, and the beneficial use and enjoyment of the same, assured to the patentees, as tenants in capite, by the most direct and abundant terms of conveyancing, there are superadded, certain collateral powers of baronial dominion; reserving, however, to the governor, council and assembly of Virginia, the exclusive authority in all the military concerns of the granted territory, and the power to impose taxes on the persons and property of its inhabitants for the public and common defence of the colony, as well as a general jurisdiction over the patentees, their heirs and assigns, and all other inhabitants of the said territory.

In the enumeration of privileges specifically granted to the patentees, their heirs and assigns, is, 'freely and without molestation of the king, to give, grant, or by any ways or means, sell or alien all and singular, the granted premises, and every part and parcel thereof, to any person or persons being willing to contract for or buy the same.'

There is also a condition to avoid the grant, as to so much of the granted premises as should not be possessed, inhabited or planted by the means or procurement of the patentees, their heirs or assigns, in the space of 21 years.

The third and last of the letters patent referred to, (4 Jac. 2.) after reciting a sale and conveyance of the granted premises by the former patentees, to Thomas lord Culpeper, 'who was thereby become sole owner and proprietor thereof in fee simple,' proceeds to confirm the same to lord Culpeper, in fee simple, and to release him from the said condition, of having the lands inhabited or planted as aforesaid.

The said act of assembly then recites, that Thomas lord Fairfax, heir at law of lord Culpeper, had become 'sole proprietor of said territory, with the appurtenances, and the above recited letters patent.'

By another act of assembly, passed in the year 1748, [Rev. Code, v. 1. ch. 4, p. 10] certain grants from the crown, made while the exact boundaries of the Northern Neck were doubtful, for lands which proved to he within those boundaries, as then recently settled and determined, were, with the express consent of lord Fairfax, confirmed to the grantees; to be held, nevertheless of him, and all the rents, services, profits and emoluments, (reserved by such grants) to be paid and performed to him.

In another act of assembly, passed May, 1779, for establishing a land office, and ascertaining the terms and manner of granting waste and unappropriated lands, there is the following clause, viz.: [vide Chy. Rev. of 1783, ch. 13, s. 6, p. 98] 'And that the proprietors of land within this commonwealth, may no longer be subject to any servile, feudal or precarious tenure; and to prevent the danger to a free state from perpetual revenue; Be it enacted, That the royal mines, quit rents, and all other reservations and conditions in the patents or grants of land from the crown of England, under the former government, shall be, and are hereby declared null and void; and that all lands, thereby respectively granted, shall be held in absolute and unconditional property, to all intents and purposes whatsoever, in the same manner with the lands hereafter to be granted by the commonwealth, by virtue of this act.'

2d. As respects the actual exercise of his proprietary rights by lord Fairfax.

It is agreed that he did, in the year 1748, open and conduct, at his own expense, an office within the Northern Neck, for granting and conveying what he described and called the waste and ungranted lands therein, upon certain terms, and according to certain rules by him established and published; that he did, from time to time, grant parcels of such lands in fee; (the deeds being registered at his said office, in books kept for that purpose, by his own clerks and agents) that according to the uniform tenor of such grants, he did, styling himself proprietor of the Northern Neck, &c. in consideration of a certain composition to him paid, and of certain annual rents therein reserved, grant, &c. with a clause of re-entry for non-payment of the rent, &c. that he also demised, for lives and terms of years parcels of the same description of lands, also reserving annual rents; that he kept his said office open for the purposes aforesaid, from the year 1748, till his death in December, 1781; during the whole of which period, and before, he exercised the right of granting, in fee, and demising for lives and terms of years as aforesaid; and received and enjoyed the rents annually, as they accrued, as well under the grants in fee, as under the leases for lives and years. It is also agreed that lord Fairfax died seized of lands in the Northern Neck, equal to about 300,000 acres, which had been granted by him in fee, to one T. B. Martin upon the same terms and conditions, and in the same form, as the other grants in fee before described; which lands were, soon after being so granted, reconveyed to lord Fairfax in fee.

3d. Lord Fairfax being a citizen and inhabitant of Virginia, died in the month of December, 1781; and by his last will and testament, duly made and published, devised the whole of his lands, &c. called or known by the name of the Northern Neck of Virginia, in fee to Denny Fairfax, (the original Defendant in ejectment) by the name and description of the reverend Denny Martin, &c. upon condition of his taking the name and arms of Fairfax, &c. and it is admitted that he fully complied with the conditions of the devise.

4th. It is agreed that Denny Fairfax, the devisee, was a native born Britith subject, and never became a citizen of the United States, nor any one of them; but always resided in England; as well during the revolutionary war, as from his birth about the year 1750, to his death, which happened some time between the years 1796 and 1803, as appears from the record of the proceedings in the Court of Appeals.

It is also admitted that lord Fairfax left, at his death, a nephew named Thomas Bryan Martin, who was always a citizen of Virginia, being the younger brother of the said devisee, and the second son of a sister of the said lord Fairfax; which sister was still living, and had always been a British subject.

5th. The land demanded by this ejectment, being agreed to be part and parcel of the said territory and tract of land, called the Northern Neck, and to be a part of that description of lands, within the Northern Neck, called and described by lord Fairfax, as 'waste and ungranted;' and being also agreed never to have been escheated and seized into the hands of the commonwealth of Virginia, pursuant to certain acts of assembly concerning escheators, and never to have been the subject of any inquest of office, was contained and included in a certain patent, bearing date the 30th April, 1789, under the hand of the then governor, and the seal of the commonwealth of Virginia, purporting that the land in question, is granted by the said commonwealth unto David Hunter [the lessor of the Plaintiff in ejectment] and his heirs forever, by virtue and in consideration of a land office treasury warrant, issued the 23d January, 1788. The said lessor of the Plaintiff in ejectment is, and always has been a citizen of Virginia; and in pursuance of his said patent entered into the land in question, and was thereof possessed, prior to the institution of the said action of ejectment.

6th. The definitive treaty of peace concluded in the year 1783, between the United States of America and Great Britain, and also the several acts of the assembly of Virginia, concerning the premises, are referred to as making a part of the case agreed.

Treaties and acts...

To continue reading

Request your trial
74 cases
  • O'dell v. Robert, No. 35488
    • United States
    • West Virginia Supreme Court
    • November 24, 2010
    ...for entry of judgment in favor of the defendants. Reversed and remanded.--------Notes: 1. See, e.g., Fairfax's Devisee v. Hunter's Lessee, 11 U.S. 603 (1812) (permitting a British native, pursuant to the peace treaty of 1783 between the United States and Great Britain, to inherit Lord Fairf......
  • State v. King
    • United States
    • West Virginia Supreme Court
    • December 22, 1908
    ...possession would follow. The state has title and constructive possession incident to title. In Fairfax's Devisee v. Hunter, 7 Cranch, 622, 3 L. Ed. 453, Justice Story said: "As to the first point we will not say that it was not competent for the Legislature by special act to have vested the......
  • Caparell v. Goodbody
    • United States
    • New Jersey Court of Chancery
    • December 29, 1942
    ...but they have no capacity to hold against the State, and the land so taken may be escheated to the State. Fairfax's Devisee v. Hunter's Lessee, 1813, 7 Cranch 603, 610, 3 L.Ed. 453; Doe ex dem. Gouverneur's Heirs v. Robertson, 1826, 11 Wheat. 332, 6 L.Ed. 488; Hauenstein v. Lynham, supra; M......
  • Shames v. State of Nebraska
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Nebraska
    • February 11, 1971
    ...the rule at common law that an alien was not entitled to hold real property in his own name. See, e. g., Fairfax's Devisee v. Hunter's Lessee, 11 U.S. (7 Cr.) 603, 3 L.Ed. 453 (1813). He could take by act of the parties, but could not take by operation of law. At the same time I am aware th......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Deconstructing deem and pass: a constitutional analysis of the enactment of bills by implication.
    • United States
    • Washington University Law Review Vol. 90 No. 4, June 2013
    • June 1, 2013
    ...14 U.S. 304, 356-62 (1816) (holding that a validly enacted treaty preempts conflicting state law); Fairfax's Devisee v. Hunter's Lessee, 11 U.S. 603, 626-28 (1813) (86.) It bears noting that Article II, [section] 2 indicates that two-thirds of a quorum of the Senate is sufficient to conside......
  • Missouri v. Holland and historical textualism.
    • United States
    • Missouri Law Review Vol. 73 No. 4, September 2008
    • September 22, 2008
    ...PAPERS OF ALEXANDER HAMILTON, supra note 30, at 15-19. (86.) Golove, supra note 4, at 1172-73. (87.) Fairfax's Devisee v. Hunter's Lessee, 11 U.S. 603, 627-28 (88.) Golove, supra note 4, at 1149-93. (89.) See id. at 1179-86. (90.) See ELKINS & MCKITRICK, supra note 76, at 441-45. The Re......

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