John Goodtitle, Ex Dem John Pollard, William Pollard, John Fowler and Harriet, His Wife, Late Harriet Pollard, Henry Ensign and Phebe, His Wife, Late Phebe Pollard, George Huggins and Louisa, His Wife, Late Louisa Pollard, Joseph Case and Eliza, His Wife, Late Eliza Pollard, Heirs and Legal Representatives of William Pollard, Deceased Plaintiff In Error v. Gaius Kibbe
Decision Date | 01 January 1850 |
Parties | JOHN GOODTITLE, EX DEM. JOHN POLLARD, WILLIAM POLLARD, JOHN FOWLER AND HARRIET, HIS WIFE, LATE HARRIET POLLARD, HENRY P. ENSIGN AND PHEBE, HIS WIFE, LATE PHEBE POLLARD, GEORGE HUGGINS AND LOUISA, HIS WIFE, LATE LOUISA POLLARD, JOSEPH CASE AND ELIZA, HIS WIFE, LATE ELIZA POLLARD, HEIRS AND LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF WILLIAM POLLARD, DECEASED, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. GAIUS KIBBE |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
The particular land in this writ was never improved until Curtis Lewis made the fillings up. It was further in proof, that previous to 1819, then, and until filled up, the lots claimed by plaintiff were at ordinary high tides covered with water, and mainly so at all stages of water; that the ordinary high tide at that time, flowing from the east, reached to about the middle of what is now Water Street. That in the Spanish times the eastern part of the lots to the west of Water Street was subject to be covered by water at ordinary tides by a flow of water from the river. That what is Water Street at this time was a natural ridge, which was not usually overflowed except at high tides; but there was a depression to the north of the lot of defendant, across which it flowed around upon the eastern parts of the lots lying to the west of the lots sued for. This ridge was about fifteen feet wide; Water Street was laid out in 1820, and is sixty feet.
That no one had possession of the premises in question before 1826, except as before stated. The lines of the lot in the Spanish grant, being extended to the river, include the premises in dispute.
It was further in evidence that Mr. Pollard died in 1816.
TEST & PHILLIPS, for Plaintiff.
J. A. CAMPBELL,
STEWART & EASTON, for Defendant.
And upon this evidence the court gave the following instructions to the jury, to wit:——
'Plaintiff claims under a Spanish grant by Cayetano Perez, of date December 12, 1809, act of Congress confirming the same, July 2d, 1836, and a patent from the United States in pursuance thereof, dated March 15th, 1837.
'Defendant insists that plaintiff's title is not good, because the Spanish grant of itself is incomplete and invalid, and although it was confirmed by act of Congress in 1836, yet, the premises sued for being the shore of a navigable river, lying below high-water mark at the time the State of Alabama was admitted into the Union, Congress, at the time of the act of confirmation, had no control over the subject, and was powerless to add any thing or impart any vitality to the Spanish grant.
'From this statement of the case, the first question that naturally presents itself is, What was the character of the interest the United States had in the premises in 1836, or had they any interest at that time in the soil?
'If Spain could have granted the shores of navigable rivers,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Provo City v. Jacobsen
... ... to the plaintiff, wherein the State of Utah intervened ... I ... E. Brockbank and George W. Worthen, both of ... Provo, for ... If ... this is an equity case we must pass on both the law and the ... facts ... ordinary high water mark. Pollard v. Hagan, ... 1845, 44 U.S. 212, 3 How. 212, ... Pet. 367, 10 L.Ed. 997; Pollard's Heirs v ... Kibbe, 50 U.S. 471, 9 How. 471, 13 ... lake to an artificial level in the late eighties and early ... nineties, and Mr. Justice ... The ... court was therefore in error in its findings against ... plaintiff. The ... ...
-
Bonelli Cattle Company v. Arizona 8212 397
...315 (1972). 13 152 U.S., at 11, 14 S.Ct., at 551. 14 The Supreme Court of Arizona relied on this Court's decisions in Goodtitle v. Kibbe, 9 How. 471, 13 L.Ed. 220 (1850), and Pollard's Lessee v. Hagan, 3 How. 212, 11 L.Ed. 565 (1845), for the proposition that a federal rechanneling project ......
-
Utah Power & Light Co. v. United States
...United States. New Orleans v. United States, 10 Pet. 662, 737 (9 L.Ed. 573); Pollard v. Hagan, 3 How. 212 (11 L.Ed. 565); Goodtitle v. Kibbe, 9 How. 471 (13 L.Ed. 220); Doe v. Beebe, 13 How. 25 (14 L.Ed. 35); v. Keokuk, 94 U.S. 324 (24 L.Ed. 224). But public and unoccupied lands, to which t......
-
Annie Kean v. Calumet Canal Improvement Company
...v. Waddell (1842) 16 Pet. 367, 410, 10 L. ed. 997, 1012; Pollard v. Hagan (1845) 3 How. 213, 11 L. ed. 566; Goodtitle ex dem. Pollard v. Kibbe (1850) 9 How. 471, 13 L. ed. 220; Doe ex dem. Hallett v. Beebe (1851) 13 How. 25, 14 L. ed. 35; United States v. Pacheco (1864) 2 Wall. 587, 17 L. e......