Josiah Garland, Plaintiff In Error v. Robert Wynn, Executor and Devisee of William Wynn, Deceased

Citation15 L.Ed. 801,20 How. 6,61 U.S. 6
PartiesJOSIAH GARLAND, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. ROBERT H. WYNN, EXECUTOR AND DEVISEE OF WILLIAM WYNN, DECEASED
Decision Date01 December 1857
CourtUnited States Supreme Court

THIS case was brought up from the Supreme Court of Arkansas, by writ of error issued under the 25th section of the judiciary act.

It was submitted on printed arguments, by Mr. Bradley and Mr. Watkins for the plaintiff in error, and by Mr. Pike for the defendant in error.

The controversy referred to the northeast quarter of section 18, in township 16 south, range 25 west of the fifth principal meridian, south of Red river, in the county of Lafayette.

The facts of the case are stated in the opinion of the court.

The bill was filed by Wynn, who alleged that he would have got a patent but for Garland's proving a pre-emption right in the land, under the act of 1830, to exist in Hemphill. After various proceedings, the Circuit Court (State court) decreed against Wynn. The Supreme Court of the State reversed this decree, and ordered Garland to convey the land in question to Wynn, upon payment of two hundred dollars, with interest; or in case of neglect, that the decree should stand as a conveyance, &c.

From this decree, Garland appealed to this court.

The principal points of law involved in the argument were: 1st, whether or not Wynn could interpose between the United States and the patentee; and, 2d, whether the decision of the officers of the land office was not conclusive upon all person except the United States, and upon them also until the patent was vacated by regular judicial authority.

Mr. Justice CATRON delivered the opinion of the court.

In November, 1842, William Wynn (the complainant below) proved that he had a preference of entry to the quarter section of land in dispute, according to the act of 1838, and his entry was allowed.

In February, 1843, Samuel Hemphill made proof that he had a right of pre-emption to the same land, under the act of May 26th, 1830. The two claims coming in conflict, it was decided by the register and receiver at the local land office, that Hemphill had the earlier and better right to enter the land; and in this decision the Commissioner of the General Land Office concurred.

Wynn's entry being the oldest, it was set aside, his purchase-money refunded, and a patent certificate was awarded to Samuel Hemphill, who assigned it to Garland, the plaintiff in error, to whom the patent issued. The benefit of the patent was decreed to Wynn by the Supreme Court of Arkansas; to reverse which decree, Garland prosecutes his writ of error out of this court.

It appears, from the allegations and evidence, that Garland procured the proofs, and was in fact the principal in obtaining a preference of entry in the name of Hemphill, and in causing Wynn's elder entry to be vacated; that the whole proceeding, on the part of Garland and Hemphill, was a mere imposition on the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
39 cases
  • Dugan v. Montoya
    • United States
    • New Mexico Supreme Court
    • February 16, 1918
    ...870, 37 C. C. A. 290, 296; Cunningham v. Ashley, 14 How. 377, 14 L. Ed. 462; Barnard v. Ashley, 18 How. 43, 15 L. Ed. 285; Garland v. Wynn, 20 How. 6, 15 L. Ed. 801; Lytle v. Arkansas, 22 How. 193, 16 L. Ed. 306; Lindsey v. Hawes, 2 Black, 554, 562, 17 L. Ed. 265; Johnson v. Towsley, 13 Wal......
  • King v. McAndrews
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • October 28, 1901
    ...864, 870, 37 C.C.A. 290, 296; Cunningham v. Ashley, 14 How. 377, 14 L.Ed. 462; Barnard v. Ashley, 18 How. 43, 15 L.Ed. 285; Garland v. Wynn, 20 How. 6, 15 L.Ed. 801; Lytle v. Arkansas, 22 How. 193, 16 L.Ed. Lindsey v. Hawes, 2 Black, 554, 562, 17 L.Ed. 265; Johnson v. Towsley, 13 Wall. 72, ......
  • United States v. Winona & St. P.R. Co., 564.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • May 6, 1895
    ...v. Mortgage Co., 11 C.C.A. 128, 63 F. 192, 195; Cunningham v. Ashley, 14 How. 377; Barnard's Heirs v. Ashley's Heirs, 18 How. 43; Garland v. Wynn, 20 How. 6; Lytle State, 22 How. 193; Lindsey v. Hawes, 2 Black, 554, 562; Johnson v. Towsley, 13 Wall. 72, 85; Moore v. Robbins, 96 U.S. 538; Be......
  • Magwire v. Tyler
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • October 31, 1870
    ...Swazy v. Burke, 12 Pet. 14; Cox v. Izard, 7 Wall. 561; Hughes v. United States, 4 Wall. 236; Hughes v. United States, 11 How. 567; Garland v. Wynn, 20 How. 6; Cunningham v. Ashley, 14 How. 377; Lindsey v. Hays, 2 Black, 557; Minnesota v. Batchelder, 1 Wall. 115; Lytle v. Arkansas, 22 How. 1......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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