Matthew Cunningham, Plaintiff In Error v. Mary Ashley, Executrix and Sole Legatee of Chester Ashley, Deceased and William Ashley, Frances Ashley Now Frances Freeman and Henry Ashley, By Mary Ashley, His Guardian, Heirs At Law of Said Chester Ashley, Deceased and Roswell Beebe

Decision Date01 December 1852
Citation55 U.S. 377,14 How. 377,14 L.Ed. 462
PartiesMATTHEW CUNNINGHAM, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. MARY W. W. ASHLEY, EXECUTRIX AND SOLE LEGATEE OF CHESTER ASHLEY, DECEASED, AND WILLIAM E. ASHLEY, FRANCES A. ASHLEY, (NOW FRANCES A. FREEMAN,) AND HENRY W. ASHLEY, BY MARY W. W. ASHLEY, HIS GUARDIAN, HEIRS AT LAW OF SAID CHESTER ASHLEY, DECEASED, AND ROSWELL BEEBE
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

On the 26th of December, 1838, the Commissioner of the General Land-Office, required the land-officers at Little Rock to inform him, 'why entries 3549 and 3554, with two others, were permitted to be made on land already occupied by prior claims long since located, and against the validity of which this office possesses no evidence.' In reply, dated 30th January, 1839, the land-officers stated, that the entries were permitted 'upon the demand of Roswell Beebe, and the several allegations made by him, setting forth and showing, conclusively, that the Treasury Department had disallowed the pre emption claims under the act of 1814, upon all the lands south of the Arkansas River, ceded by the Quapaw treaties of 1818, and 1824,' &c. And they say, 'The original plat of survey embracing those entries, was, at the time, complete, and represented the subdivisional lines, and the number of acres corresponding respectively with those certificates of entry; and there was no evidence of record on file, in either of our offices, to show that these lands were ever regularly entered, or located, and due return made thereof, according to law, except such evidence as was exhibited by the pre emption, abstract from Batesville, under the act of 1814, and the coloring of the plat. The capitol of the State of Arkansas is built upon a portion of these lands, at a cost of some seventy thousand dollars, or more. The corporate authorities of the city of Little Rock, as well as the inhabitants, all hold under conveyances derived from, as under the pre emption claim, and against the New Madrid claims, either by a compromise made by the respective claimants about the year 1821, or, by the decision of the land-officers at Batesville, of which we are not particularly informed. All parties, within the limits of the city, we believe, are fully satisfied that these entries which embrace it will cure the defects in their titles, as no dissatisfaction is believed to exist with any one interested in the question. Those entries were therefore allowed by us upon due reflection, under the belief...

To continue reading

Request your trial
31 cases
  • Dugan v. Montoya
    • United States
    • New Mexico Supreme Court
    • February 16, 1918
    ...958, 15 C. C. A. 96, 106, 32 U. S. App. 272, 288; U. S. v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 95 Fed. 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,......
  • King v. McAndrews
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • October 28, 1901
    ... ... King, on the brief), for ... plaintiff in error ... John D ... Rivers, for ... Pease, L.C. Rush, and William Lawson ... to recover possession of lots 3 and 4 ... consisted of a void patent issued to Henry J. King on July 6, ... 1899. The plaintiff filed ... 209, 23 L.Ed. 849; ... Iron Co. v. Cunningham, 155 U.S. 354, 15 Sup.Ct ... 103, 39 L.Ed ... C.C.A. 290, 296; Cunningham v. Ashley, 14 How. 377, ... 14 L.Ed. 462; Barnard v ... Upon this subject ... the supreme court said in Refining Co. v. Kemp, 104 ... U.S., at page ... the United States for the sole purpose of securing homes to ... actual ... same as homesteads, or to their heirs, after the expiration ... of five years' ... ...
  • United States v. Winona & St. P.R. Co., 564.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • May 6, 1895
    ... ... each side of each of said roads, and provided that in case it ... should ... purchased from any of them, discovered this error or received ... notice of any claim of the ... This court held that the plaintiff ... could not maintain his action, because he ... 209; Iron Co. v ... Cunningham, 15 Sup.Ct. 103; or cases in which the land ... 128, 63 F. 192, 195; Cunningham v. Ashley, 14 How ... 377; Barnard's Heirs v. Ashley's ... They were dealing with ... sole reference to the even-numbered sections within ... ...
  • Magwire v. Tyler
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • October 31, 1870
    ...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. 193; Fleming v. Slocum, 18 Johns.......
  • 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