United States v. Masters

Decision Date01 December 1866
Citation4 Wall. 680,18 L.Ed. 311,71 U.S. 680
PartiesUNITED STATES v. McMASTERS
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

THIS was a writ of error to the Circuit Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, and involved two questions: one, that of a private boundary to a tract of land, the other a question of the admission of testimony taken under a commission.

The case was submitted on printed briefs of Mr. Stanbery, A. G., and Mr. Assistant Attorney-General Ashton, for the United States, plaintiff in error, and of Mr. Janin, contra.

Mr. Justice NELSON delivered the opinion of the court.

This suit was brought, in the court below, by the United States to recover possession of a tract of land situate in the Parish of St. Bernard, about ten miles below the city of New Orleans, on the east side of the River Mississippi, and between that river and Lake Borgne.

The defendants set up two grounds of defence: 1. That the tract of land in controversy had been granted to Madame Le Compte by the Spanish government, November 3d, 1784; and, 2. That the grant was confirmed to F. and J. Phillipon by act of Congress, March 3d, 1835, from whom the defendants derived their titles.

1. The Spanish grant was produced on the trial from the register's office in New Orleans, where these ancient titles are deposited, and is found in the record.

The Governor, in making the grant, recites:

'Considering the foregoing proceedings, made by the segundo ayundante of this place, Louis Andry, who was appointed to make survey and put Dn. Maria Le Compte in possession of the vacant land which lies in rear or at the extremity of the forty arpents in depth of the plantation belonging to Bachemin, Corbin, Voison, and Portugais, and consists of fourteen arpents in front, composing the said plantations, until it reaches Lake Borgne; and, finding that said proceedings are made agreeably to the order of survey, and to the grants of the above-named parties, who are not injured—nay, who have assented thereto, &c.—Now, THEREFORE, &c., we do, by these presents, 'grant to the said Maria Le Compte the above-mentioned fourteen arpents front from the forty arpents in depth owned by the said Bachemin, &c., to the aforesaid lake, following the same directions which the boundary lines of the said Bachemin, &c., run, in order that she may dispose of and enjoy the same, &c.'

There is some obscurity in the language of the grant, and, if it was open for construction, there is ground for the interpretation contended for by the government, namely: that the tract granted consisted of an area of fourteen arpents front, and extending back within parallel lines to Lake Borgne. But this obscurity is removed by the official Spanish survey referred to in the grant, and which, as we have seen, was before the government when the grant was made.

Phelps, a United States deputy surveyor, and who has been in the service of the government, under the Surveyor-General, since 1828, surveyed the side lines of this tract in 1831, and, according to his recollection and belief, had before him, at the time, the original Spanish survey of Landry, and followed the side lines of that survey, which were not parallel, but were diverging side lines, corresponding with those of the front grant to Bachemin and others. That grant fronted on a bend of the river, on the convex side, or shore; and, according to the usage in Spanish locations on such bends, and which is the usage and practice of locations under our system of survey, the side lines run at right angles with the bend of the river, and, as in the instance...

To continue reading

Request your trial
16 cases
  • Chicago Great Western Ry. Co. v. McDonough
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • April 27, 1908
    ... 161 F. 657 CHICAGO GREAT WESTERN RY. CO. v. McDONOUGH. No. 2,405. United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. April 27, 1908 ... Syllabus by the Court ... ...
  • Bram v. United States, 340
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • December 13, 1897
    ...court below, but that the parties excepted at the time to the action of the court thereon.' Hutchins v. King, 1 Wall. 53, 60; U. S. v. McMasters, 4 Wall. 680, 682. 'Our power is confined to exceptions actually taken at the trial.' Railway Co. v. Heck, 102 U. S. 120. See, also, Moore v. Bank......
  • Graves v. Bonness
    • United States
    • Minnesota Supreme Court
    • February 16, 1906
  • Graves v. Bonness
    • United States
    • Minnesota Supreme Court
    • February 16, 1906
    ...remove the objections by other evidence.’ Gilfillan, C. J., in Gilbert v. Thompson, 14 Minn. 544 (Gil. 414, 416). And see U. S. v. McMasters, 4 Wall. 680, 18 L. Ed. 311;Burton v. Driggs, 20 Wall. 125, 22 L. Ed. 299;Wood v. Weimar, 104 U. S. 795,26 L. Ed. 779. ‘The rule is universal that, wh......
  • 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