John Doe, Ex Dem Curtis Mann and Dolphus Hannah, Plaintiffs In Error v. William Wilson
| Citation | 23 How. 457,16 L.Ed. 584,64 U.S. 457 |
| Parties | JOHN DOE, EX DEM. CURTIS MANN AND DOLPHUS HANNAH, PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR, v. WILLIAM WILSON |
| Decision Date | 01 December 1859 |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
THIS case was brought up by writ of error from the Circuit Court of the United States for the district of Indiana.
It was an ejectment brought by Mann, a citizen of New York, and Hannah, a citizen of Iowa, against Wilson, to recover sections nine and ten, in township 35, range 4 west, in the county of Laporte, in Indiana.
The important question involved in the case may perhaps be more distinctly presented to the reader by a chronological order of events than by a recital of the titles offered upon the trial by the plaintiffs and defendant, respectively.
In October, 1832, treaties were made with the Pottawatomie Indians, by which the Indians ceded to the United States certain tracts of land therein described, except certain reservations to the Indians, amongst which was one to Pet-chi-co, of two sections. The language of the reservation was: 'The United States agree to grant to each of the following persons the quantity of land annexed to their names, which lands shall be conveyed to them by patent.' To Pet-chi-co two sections, &c., &c.
Then followed this sentence: 'The foregoing reservations shall be selected under the direction of the President of the United States, after the lands shall have been surveyed, and the boundaries to correspond with the public surveys.'
7 Stat. at L., 394, 395.
In February, 1833, Pet-chi-co made a deed to Coquillard and Colerick, with a general warranty, conveying 'all of those two sections of land lying and being in the State aforesaid,' &c., &c.
Before the lands were selected or located by the President, and before any patent issued, Pet-chi-co died.
In January, 1837, patents were issued to Pet-chi-co and his heirs for the two sections mentioned in the treaty. They recited that, 'whereas, by the third article of the treaty made in October, 1832, the United States agreed to grant to Pet-chi-co two sections; therefore,' &c., &c.
In 1854, certain persons obtained a deed from the heirs of Pet-chi-co; and under this deed the plaintiffs below (who were also plaintiffs in error) claimed, upon the ground that the deed from Pet-chi-co in 1833 was invalid. Wilson claimed under the latter deed. The leading question in the case was, therefore, whether Pet-chi-co had a right to make the deed when it was made.
In the course of the trial below, many exceptions were taken respecting matters of evidence, and many prayers to the court made; in so much that the counsel for the plaintiffs in error, after many other points, enumerated twenty-six distinct causes of error. It is not necessary to mention these. The rulings of the Circuit Court upon the two following points are sufficient for the purpose of the present report:
4. If Pet-chi-co, between the ratification of the treaty and the issuing of the patents, sold and conveyed the land in controversy by a sufficient deed of conveyance, with covenants of warranty, to Coquillard and Colerick, and their assigns, then the patents when issued, as to the assignees, related back to and took effect from the ratification of the treaty.
5. If, before the issuing of the patents to Pet-chi-co, he had, by a legal and valid instrument, assigned to Coquillard and Colerick his interest in the lands which were to be granted to him under the treaty of October, 1832; and if Colerick had, in like manner, assigned his interest to Coquillard; and if Coquillard had, in like manner, assigned to Wilson, then, by virtue of the act of Congress of May 20, 1836, the patents when issued inured to the benefit of Wilson, and vested the legal title to the land in him, although Pet-chi-co may have died before its date.
The verdict being for the defendant, the plaintiffs brought the case up to this court.
It was argued by Mr. Baxter for the plaintiffs in error, and by Mr. John B. Niles for the defendant.
Without following the counsel through the branches of the case or the effect of the act of 1836, we can only state the positions assumed upon the point decided by this court.
Mr. Baxter said:
I. The third article of the treaty of the 27th October, 1832, was a mere executory promise of the United States, to grant in future and by patent to Pet-chi-co two sections of land, to be thereafter selected by the President. This promise was to be performed by the political department, and before its performance could create no inchoate title or estate in Pet-chi-co to any lands.
Longlois v. Coffin, 1 Indiana Reports, 446.
Verden v. Coleman, 4 Ind., 457.
Fipp v. McGehee, 5 Porter, 413.
Johnson v. McGehee and Thomas, 1 Ala., 173, 174.
And this, being a mere executory promise, to be executed by the political department, was not assignable; and the effort was against public policy, and could convey no estate to the assignee, or give him any right to the land.
Lampet Case, 10 Coke, 46 b, 48 a.
Cruise, vol. 4, p. 174, title 32, chap. 6, sec. 46.
Carleton v. Lughton, 3 Merivale, 670.
Doe d. Brun v. Martin, 8 Barn. and Cress.; 15 Com. Law Rep., 283.
4th sec. act of July 22, 1790, 1 S. L., p. 138.
12th sec. act of 1802, 2 S. L., p. 143.
Opinion of Mr. Taney on Treaty of 20th October, 1852, 2 Opinions, 588.
Jackson v. Wood, 7 John., 294.
Goodell v. Jackson, 20 Johnson, 706, 708.
Mr. Niles said:
The fourth instruction given by the court was as follows:
'If Pet-chi-co, between the ratification of the treaty and the issuing of the patents, sold and conveyed the land in controversy, by a sufficient deed of conveyance, with covenants of warranty, to Coquillard and Colerick, and their assigns then the patents, when issued, as to the assignees, related back to and took effect from the date of the ratification of the treaty.'
This instruction announces a well-known principle, often affirmed by the Supreme Court, that all the several parts and ceremonies necessary to complete a conveyance shall be taken together as one act, and operate from the substantial part by relation.
Cruise on Real Property, vol. 5, pp. 510, 511.
Jackson ex dem. Forrest v. Ramsay, 3 Cow., 75.
Landes v. Brant, 10 How., 348.
Ross v. Barland, 1 Peters, 655.
Lessee French v. Spencer, 21 How., 228.
The doctrine of this instruction is strengthened in its application to this case by the act of Congress of May 20, 1836, above referred to.
In Landes v. Brant, the court say, that 'in every case in which this court has been called on to investigate titles where conveyances of lands had been made during the time that a claim was pending before a board of commissioners, and where the claim was ultimately confirmed in the name of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Edwards v. Carter, 78-1166
...for Indians, it is in the same category as the other Indian treaty cases and it does not affect this case.9. Doe v. Wilson, 64 U.S. (23 How.) 457, 461, 16 L.Ed. 584 (1859), involved Indian lands, but contains no reference to the scope of Congress' authority to dispose of property. The decis......
-
Godfrey v. Iowa Land & Trust Co.
...taken, as between the parties to the suit, to bear date with the commencement of title." ¶11 In the case of Doe ex dem. Mann et al. v. Wilson, 23 How. (U. S.) 457, 16 L. Ed. 584, Mr. Justice Catron, speaking for the court, said: "By the treaty of October 27, 1832, made by the United States,......
-
Heerman v. Rolfe
... ... from District Court, Benson County, John F. Cowan, J ... Action ... in 99 U.S. 291, 25 L.Ed. 324; Dole v. Wilson, 20 ... Minn. 356, Gil. 308; Doe ex dem. Mann ... respondent's counsel are also clearly in error in ... the contention that Demerce acquired no ... ...
-
Wallace v. Adams
...Heirs, 2 Wheat. 196, 4 L.Ed. 218; Gaines v. Nicholson, 9 How. 356, 13 L.Ed. 172; U.S. v. Brooks, 10 How. 442, 12 L.Ed. 489; Doe v. Wilson, 23 How. 457, 16 L.Ed. 584; Crews v. Burcham, 1 Black, 352, 17 L.Ed. Best v. Polk, 18 Wall. 112, 21 L.Ed. 805; New York Indians v. U.S., 170 U.S. 1, 18 S......