Reichart v. Felps
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | GRIER |
| Citation | 6 Wall. 160,73 U.S. 160,18 L.Ed. 849 |
| Decision Date | 01 December 1867 |
| Parties | REICHART v. FELPS |
ERROR to the Supreme Court of Illinois; the case, which was one of ejectment, being thus:
In 1784, after the War of the Revol tion, the State of Virginia then claiming the Northwest Territory, a part of which makes the now State of Illinois—and in which, from early times, inhabitants of Canada, while Canada was yet a French province, had settled—yielded her claim and title in the territory to the United States, on condition 'that the
Page 161
French and Canadian inhabitants, and other settlers of the Kaskaskias, St. Vincent's, and the neighboring villages, who have professed themselves citizens of Virginia, shall have their possessions and titles confirmed to them, and be protected in the enjoyment of their rights and liberties.'
On the 20th of June, 1788, Congress enacted, that from any general sale of lands in this region there should be a reserve of so much land as should satisfy all the just claims of the ancient settlers; 'that they should be confirmed in the possession of such lands as they may have had at the beginning of the Revolution; that measures be immediately taken for confirming them in their possessions and titles, and that the governor of the Northwestern Territory be instructed to examine the titles and possessions of the settlers, as above described, in order to determine what quantity of land they may severally claim, which shall be laid off for them at their own expense.'
Under this authority, and some instructions not necessary to be mentioned, but reciting them all, the then governor of the Northwestern Territory, General St. Clair, on the 12th of February, 1799, issued a document, somewhat in the form of a land-patent, to one Jarrot, who 'laid claim' to a piece of land in the county then and now known as St. Clair, Illinois, 'confirming' to him in fee a tract described. This instrument of confirmation, signed by General St. Clair, and duly registered, October 19th, 1804, ended thus:
'In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand, and caused the seal of the Territory to be affixed, at Cincinnati, &c., on the 12th day of February, A.D. 1799, and of the Independence of the United States the 23d.'
The land claimed and thus described in the patent was regularly surveyed, April 10th, 1798, by one McCann, 'lawfully authorized to survey such claims.'
This title of Jarrot, thus confirmed, became afterwards vested in one Felps.
But an opposing title also came into existence. On the 20th of February, 1812, an act of Congress was passed,
Page 162
authorizing a board of commissioners to revise and reexamine the confirmations made by the governor of the Northwestern Territory; and the board, in pursuance of the act, made such a report to the government of the United States, that the government by its proper officers rejected this claim, and subsequently exposed the land previously confirmed to Jarrot to public sale, when a certain Reichart became the purchaser. Two patents were accordingly issued to him by the United States, one in 1838 and one in 1853.
Reichart, asserting the title conferred by these patents, now brought ejectment in a State court of Illinois against Felps, relying on his old French claim confirmed by Governor St. Clair.
The plaintiff having given his patents of 1838 and 1853 in evidence, the defendant on his part offered the survey of McCann, and a certified copy from the records of the instrument of confirmation given by Governor St. Clair. On this certified copy no evidence appeared of a seal having ever been on the original; though there was oral testimony tending to show that the original did have a seal in wax, with an emblem and letters.
The plaintiff objected to the survey, and to the copy of the instrument from Governor St. Clair, because it showed that the original had no seal.
The court overruled the exception, and gave judgment for the defendant, so deciding against the validity of the patents of the United States issued in 1838 and 1853; though deciding in effect in favor of the validity of the instrument of confirmation professing to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Albritton v. Shaw, 23927
...granted, reserved for sale, or appropriated, are void. Easton v. Salisbury, [62 U.S. 426], 21 How. 426, [16 L.Ed. 181]; Reichart v. Felps, [73 U.S. 160, 18 L.Ed. 849], 6 Wall. 160; Best v. Polk, [85 U.S. 112], 18 Wall. 112, [21 L.Ed. 805]. It would be a most extraordinary doctrine if the ho......
-
King v. McAndrews, 1,569.
...Stoddard v. Chambers, 2 How. 284, 318, 11 L.Ed. 269; Easton v. Salisbury, 21 How. 426, 432, 16 L.Ed. 426; Reichart v. Felps, 6 Wall. 160, 18 L.Ed. 849; Best v. Polk, 18 Wall. 112, 117, 118, 21 L.Ed. 805; Sherman v. Buick, 93 U.S. 209, 23 L.Ed. 849; Iron Co. v. Cunningham, 155 U.S. 354, 15 S......
-
Dugan v. Montoya, No. 2098.
...3 L. Ed. 665; Stoddard v. Chambers, 2 How. 284, 318, 11 L. Ed. 269; Easton v. Salisbury, 21 How. 426, 16 L. Ed. 181; Reichert v. Felps, 6 Wall. 160, 18 L. Ed. 849; Best v. Polk, 18 Wall. 112, 117, 118, 21 L. Ed. 805; Sherman v. Buick, 93 U. S. 209, 23 L. Ed. 849; Iron Co. v. Cunningham, 155......
-
Home On the Range v. At&T Corp., No. 1:99-ML-9313-DFH-TAB.
...How. [284,] 317[, 11 L.Ed. 269 (1844)]; Easton v. Salisbury, [62 U.S. 426,] 21 How. [426,] 428[, 16 L.Ed. 181 (1858)]; Reichart v. Felps, 73 U.S. 160, 6 Wall. 160, 18 L.Ed. 849; Best v. Polk, [85 U.S. 112,] 18 Wall. [112,] 117[, 21 L.Ed. 805 (1873)]; Railroad Co. v. U.S., 92 U.S. 733, 2 Ott......
-
Albritton v. Shaw, 23927
...granted, reserved for sale, or appropriated, are void. Easton v. Salisbury, [62 U.S. 426], 21 How. 426, [16 L.Ed. 181]; Reichart v. Felps, [73 U.S. 160, 18 L.Ed. 849], 6 Wall. 160; Best v. Polk, [85 U.S. 112], 18 Wall. 112, [21 L.Ed. 805]. It would be a most extraordinary doctrine if the ho......
-
King v. McAndrews, 1,569.
...Stoddard v. Chambers, 2 How. 284, 318, 11 L.Ed. 269; Easton v. Salisbury, 21 How. 426, 432, 16 L.Ed. 426; Reichart v. Felps, 6 Wall. 160, 18 L.Ed. 849; Best v. Polk, 18 Wall. 112, 117, 118, 21 L.Ed. 805; Sherman v. Buick, 93 U.S. 209, 23 L.Ed. 849; Iron Co. v. Cunningham, 155 U.S. 354, 15 S......
-
Dugan v. Montoya, No. 2098.
...3 L. Ed. 665; Stoddard v. Chambers, 2 How. 284, 318, 11 L. Ed. 269; Easton v. Salisbury, 21 How. 426, 16 L. Ed. 181; Reichert v. Felps, 6 Wall. 160, 18 L. Ed. 849; Best v. Polk, 18 Wall. 112, 117, 118, 21 L. Ed. 805; Sherman v. Buick, 93 U. S. 209, 23 L. Ed. 849; Iron Co. v. Cunningham, 155......
-
Home On the Range v. At&T Corp., No. 1:99-ML-9313-DFH-TAB.
...How. [284,] 317[, 11 L.Ed. 269 (1844)]; Easton v. Salisbury, [62 U.S. 426,] 21 How. [426,] 428[, 16 L.Ed. 181 (1858)]; Reichart v. Felps, 73 U.S. 160, 6 Wall. 160, 18 L.Ed. 849; Best v. Polk, [85 U.S. 112,] 18 Wall. [112,] 117[, 21 L.Ed. 805 (1873)]; Railroad Co. v. U.S., 92 U.S. 733, 2 Ott......