Hoofnagle v. Anderson

• Decision Date: 02 March 1822
• Citation: 20 U.S. 212,5 L.Ed. 437,7 Wheat. 212
• Parties: HOOFNAGLE and Others v. ANDERSON
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

20 U.S. 212

5 L.Ed. 437

7 Wheat. 212

HOOFNAGLE and Others v. ANDERSON.

March 2, 1822

APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Ohio.

Feb. 25th.

This cause was argued by Mr. Scott and Mr. Doddridge for the appellants, and by Mr. Talbot and Mr. Brush for the respondent.

March 2d.

Mr. Chief Justice MARSHALL delivered the opinion of the Court.

This suit was brought by the appellants, who were plaintiffs in the Circuit Court for the District of Ohio, to obtain a decree for the conveyance of a tract of land of which the respondent has the legal title.

The land lies within the tract of country reserved by the Commonwealth of Virginia, out of her cession to the United States for the officers and soldiers of the Virginia Continental line. The respondent's patent is dated on the 9th day of October, 1804, and is founded on a warrant for military services, issued from the land office of Virginia, to Seymour Powell, heir of Thomas Powell, on the 29th day of May, 1783, which was entered in the office of the principal surveyor on the 16th of June, 1790, and was surveyed on the 30th of October, 1796. The survey was assigned for a valuable consideration to the appellee, in whose name the patent was issued.

The entry under which the plaintiffs claim was not made till the 28th day of May, in the year 1806; and was consequently eighteen months posterior to the emanation of the defendants grant. They insist, however, that this grant ought not to stand in their way, because it was obtained contrary to law, being founded on a warrant, which was issued by fraud or mistake.

It is admitted, that the service of Thomas Powell was performed in the State, and not in the Continental line of Virginia; consequently, the recital of his military service is erroneous. The warrant ought to have been for services in the State, instead of the Continental line. How far the patent ought to be affected by this error is the question on which the cause depends.

It is obviously the error of the Register of the land office, because the certificate on which the warrant issued states the service correctly. There can be no ground for suspecting, that any fraud is mingled with this mistake. At the time the warrant was made out, its value was precisely the same if for services in the State, as if for services in the Continental line. The quantity of acres allowed to the officer was the same; and precisely the same land was subject to be appropriated by each warrant. Virginia considered the services of the Continental and state officers as equally meritorious, and had equally rewarded them. There could exist then no possible motive for the erroneous statement on the face of the warrant, that it was issued for services in the Continental instead of the State line. It was of no advantage to Seymour Powell, whose father had performed service which the law deemed a full consideration for a warrant of equal value with that which was given him by mistake.

This warrant was assignable, and carried with it no evidence of the mistake which had been committed in the office. It has been assigned for a valuable consideration, and the purchaser has obtained a patent for a part of it, without actual notice that there was any defect in the origin of his title. Should he lose this land his warrant is lost. There is no longer any tract of country in which it can be located.

The title of the respondent to the particular tract included in his patent, was complete before that of the appellants commenced. It is not doubted that a patent appropriates land. Any defects in the preliminary steps, which are required by law, are cured by the patent. It is a title from its date, and has always been held conclusive against all those whose rights did not commence previous to its emanation. Courts of equity have considered an entry as the commencement of title, and have sustained a valid entry against a patent founded on a prior defective entry, if issued after such valid entry was made. But they have gone no farther. They have never sustained an entry made after the date of the patent. They have always rejected such claims. The reason is obvious. A patent appropriates the land it covers; and that land, being no longer vacant, is no longer subject to location. If the patent has been issued...