Philip Hickie and Others, Heirs and Legal Representatives of James Mather, Deceased Appellants v. Alexander Starke and Others, Heirs and Legal Representatives of Robert Starke, Deceased Appellees

• Decision Date: 01 January 1828
• Citation: 1 Pet. 94,26 U.S. 94,7 L.Ed. 67
• Parties: PHILIP HICKIE AND OTHERS, HEIRS AND LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF JAMES MATHER, DECEASED, APPELLANTS, v. ALEXANDER B. STARKE AND OTHERS, HEIRS AND LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF ROBERT STARKE, DECEASED, APPELLEES
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

26 U.S. 94

1 Pet. 94

7 L.Ed. 67

PHILIP HICKIE AND OTHERS, HEIRS AND LEGAL

REPRESENTATIVES OF JAMES MATHER, DECEASED, APPELLANTS,

v. ALEXANDER B. STARKE AND OTHERS, HEIRS AND LEGAL

REPRESENTATIVES OF ROBERT STARKE, DECEASED, APPELLEES.

January Term, 1828

IN the Supreme Court of the county of Adams, in the state of Mississippi, the appellees filed a bill in chancery against the appellants; which, according to the laws of the state, was transferred to the Supreme Court, where judgment was given for the complainants.

The purpose of the bill was to obtain a conveyance of a tract of land, containing 2000 acres; for which Robert Starke, in 1791, under whom the complainants claimed, obtained an order of survey from the Governor-General of Louisiana, which order was executed by the deputy surveyor, and of which land he afterwards took possession, and cultivated for years. Subsequently, Robert Starke being willing to exchange this body of lands for another, proposed the same to the governor of Louisiana. The bill alleged, that, from some personal hostility towards him, an offer of the land so held by him was made to James Mather, the ancestor of the appellants, the defendants in the bill; and a grant of the land was made in 1794, to James Mather, by the governor of Louisiana, who thereupon entered, and cultivated part of the tract.

It was admitted, that all the forms required by the established laws and customs of Louisiana, while under the Spanish government, by which a full and complete title to land was acquired, had not been conformed to, by Robert Starke, or his heirs, the appellees; and that the title of James Mather was in all respects, full and complete, as a legal title, under those laws. The appellees, in their bill, claimed to have the land conveyed to them, as the title of the appellants had been acquired by collusion with the governor of Louisiana; and the Robert Starke had been forcibly, and against his will, dispossessed of the land. Under the authority of the Supreme Court of Mississippi, a feigned issue was tried, to determine 'whether the ancestor of the complainants ever made a voluntary abandonment of his right to the premises in question, free from any undue influence on the part of the Spanish government or its officers.'

This issue was found, by the verdict of a jury, in favour of the complainants; and the same having been certified to the Supreme Court, a decree was made in favour of the complainants, the appellees. The appellants then filed their petition for a writ of error, to the Supreme Court of the United States; suggesting, that the title of James Mather arose 'under the articles of agreement and cession,' between the United States and the state of Georgia, and that by the decree of the Supreme Court, that title has been overruled. The argument before the Court, was principally confined to two questions; upon the determination of which, the jurisdiction of the Court in the case, depended.——

1. Whether the construction and effect of the articles of agreement and cession, between the United States and the state of Georgia, were presented for the consideration of the Supreme Court of Louisiana, in the investigation of this case; so that, by the decree of the Court, the title claimed by the appellants, under the articles of agreement, was brought into question?

2. Whether the appellants' title, being a full and complete Spanish grant, was confirmed by 'the articles of agreement and cession,' and was in itself a valid and indefeisible grant of the land?

The only facts connected with the discussion of the case before this Court, were those which related to the actual possession of the land by James Mather, and the period of the same.

They are sufficiently noticed in the decision of the Court.

Mr. Livingston, for the appellants.——

The question of jurisdiction rests upon the fact, whether the construction of 'the articles of agreement and cession,' was before the Court giving the decree for the appellees.

The articles provide, that all complete grants made by the Spanish or British governments, prior to the acquisition of Louisiana, by the United States; and all incomplete grants made by the state of Georgia, before 'the articles,' shall be confirmed by the United States.

The complainants' bill admits, that the appellants, the defendants in the Supreme Court of Louisiana, had a complete grant from the Spanish government of Louisiana, and thus the title of the appellants was brought before the Court; and this title was made valid, by the 'articles of agreement and cession.' The evidence in the case also fully establishes the Spanish title of the appellants, and this is shown in every part of the record; the omission of the appellants to plead this title, thus acknowledged, or thus proved, ought not to defeat it. (7 Wheat. 164. 201.) The petition for a writ of error to the Judge of the Supreme Court of Louisiana, states, that the title of the appellants, is claimed under the 'articles of agreement and cession;' and as he signs the allowance of the writ, the fact of the title having been before him, is sufficiently shown. As to the non-compliance, by the appellants, with the provisions of the Act of Congress of 3d March 1810, which provide for the registering of claims, under the Spanish and British government, it was said——

1. Congress cannot pass a law to affect a title, which has been declared complete by the 'articles of agreement and cession.'

2. If that law is valid, the fact of forfeiture by non-registration, must be ascertained by some proceeding, before the title can be considered as lost.

3. The provisions of the law refer to British grants, which were of a particular nature, and which were required to be exhibited to, and registered with the commissioners; and not to Spanish grants.

Both parties to the case, claim under a law of the United States; and, by the 25th section of the Judiciary Law, the jurisdiction of this Court extends to all such cases. As to jurisdiction, there was cited, 4 Cranch, 482. 4 Wheat. 348. 5 Cranch, 348.

Mr. M'Duffie and Mr. Coxe, for the appellees.——

The Court will not entertain jurisdiction of this case, but to a limited extent, if it shall consent to assume any jurisdiction over it; as the whole of the facts, upon which the equitable title of the appellees rested, having been peculiarly within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of...