Mayor and Aldermen of the City of Mobile, Plaintiffs v. Emanuel and Gaines, Defendants
Decision Date | 01 January 1843 |
Citation | 42 U.S. 95,11 L.Ed. 60,1 How. 95 |
Parties | MAYOR AND ALDERMEN OF THE CITY OF MOBILE, PLAINTIFFS, v. J. EMANUEL AND G. S. GAINES, DEFENDANTS |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Test, for the plaintiffs in error.
Sergeants, for the defendants.
This cause is brought to this court by a writ of error, to the Supreme Court of Alabama.
An action of trespass to try the title to a certain lot or piece of ground in the city of Mobile, was commenced by the plaintiffs against the defendants, in the Circuit Court of the state. Issue being joined, a jury were empannelled, who rendered a verdict of not guilty. As the right of the plaintiffs was asserted, exclusively, under an act of Congress, and the decision being against that right, the plaintiffs, having excepted to certain rulings of the court on the trial, prosecuted this writ of error, under the twenty-fifth section of the judiciary act of 1789.
The bill of exceptions states that it was proved the defendants were in possession of the premises described in the declaration, at the time the suit was brought.
An act of Congress, entitled 'An act, granting certain lots of ground to the corporation of the city of Mobile, and to certain
individuals of said city,' passed 20th May, 1824, was read: also 'A resolution of the mayor and aldermen of the city of Mobile, passed the 23d day of April, 1834, in the following words: 'Resolved, that the map of the city as now shown to the board, be accepted and approved; and it is further resolved that the names of the streets be the same as heretofore established."
It was also proved by the plaintiffs that the map referred to was one published by Goodwin and Haise, a copperplate...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Shively v. Bowlby
...anything to the contrary in Pollard v. Kibbe, 14 Pet. 353; Mobile v. Eslava, 16 Pet. 234; Mobile v. Hallett, 16 Pet. 261; Mobile v. Emanuel, 1 How. 95; and Pollard v. Files, 2 How. 591,) adjudged that, upon the admission of the state of Alabama into the Union, the title in the lands below h......
-
Leverich v. City of Mobile
... 110 F. 170 LEVERICH et al. v. MAYOR, ETC., OF MOBILE et al. No. 12. United States ... for defendants. [110 F. 172] . . BUSTEED,. ...Eslava, Same v. Hallett, and Same v. Emanuel severally presented the question, but the ...242. . . The. plaintiffs in this suit, and the defendants who have been. ...Be it further enacted, that the mayor, aldermen and. common council of the city of Mobile, be ......