William Minter, Hiram Saltmarsh, and Ashley Parker, Plaintiffs In Error v. Charles Crommelin
| Decision Date | 01 December 1855 |
| Parties | WILLIAM J. MINTER, HIRAM F. SALTMARSH, AND ASHLEY PARKER, PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR, v. CHARLES CROMMELIN. * |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
THIS case was brought up from the supreme court of Alabama, by a writ of error issued under the 25th section of the judiciary act.
The case is stated in the opinion of the court.
It was argued by Mr. Phillips, for the plaintiffs in error, and Mr. Bradley, for the defendant.
The material facts of this case are as follows:——
On the 12th April, 1820, a certificate, No. 28, issued from the land-office of the United States to Tallasse Fixico, a friendly chief of the Creeks, appropriating to his use and occupancy fraction 24, T. 18, R. 18, east of Coosa River, in pursuance of the act of congress of 3d March, 1817, passed to carry into effect the treaty of Fort Jackson, of August 9, 1814, with the Creek Indians.
The reserve, Tallasse Fixico, was in possession of the land, and while in possession, in 1828, he sold it, for a valuable consideration, to George Taylor, to whom he gave a deed and the possession of the land at the time of sale.
The said Taylor, while in possession, in July, 1834, sold to C. Crommelin, the defendant in error, a portion of the land, about forty acres. The purchaser received deeds for the same at the time of sale, dated 12th and 14th July, 1834, and immediately, or a short time thereafter, entered into possession, and has continued in possession until the present time.
On the 4th June, 1839, Isham Bilberry and Samuel Lee obtained from the land-office at Cahawba, a pre emption certificate, No. 35,014, in their favor, under the pre emption act of 1834, for southeast fractional quarter of sec. 24, T. 18, R. 18, being a part of Tallasse Fixico's reservation, and embracing the land in possession of the defendant in error, and which is the land sued for, namely: the forty acres purchased by him from Taylor.
On the same day, namely: 4th June, 1839, Bilberry and Lee assigned the pre emption certificate to the plaintiffs in error, Hiram F. Saltmarsh, William T. Minter, and Ashley Parker, in whose favor a patent was subsequently issued.
The state court charged the jury 'that if they found the defendant held for a series of years, and continued to hold possession under deeds from Taylor, and that Taylor held possession under Tallasse Fixico, and that the plaintiffs were never in possession; that then, the defendant held under color of title, and was in a condition to contest the validity of the patent.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dugan v. Montoya
...land conveys the legal title to it, and is impervious to collateral attack, whether its decision is right or wrong. Minter v. Crommelin, 18 How. 87, 89, 15 L. Ed. 279; U. S. v. Schurz, 102 U. S. 378, 401, 26 L. Ed. 167; Moore v. Robbins, 96 U. S. 530, 533, 24 L. Ed. 848; French v. Fyan, 93 ......
-
Old Dominion Copper Min. & Smelting Co. v. Haverly
... ... in the same house. In 1900 one William J. Roberts located a ... lode mining claim south ... -- The ... assignments of error in this case, more than thirty in ... number, ... 511, 10 L.Ed. 264; Barnard's Heirs v. Ashley's ... Heirs et al., 18 How. (U.S.) 44, 15 L.Ed ... 665; Minter v. Crommelin, 18 How. (U.S.) 88, 15 ... L.Ed ... ...
-
King v. McAndrews
...land conveys the legal title to it, and is impervious to collateral attack, whether its decision is right or wrong. Minter v. Crommelin, 18 How. 87, 89, 15 L.Ed. 279; U.S. v. Schurz, 102 U.S. 378, 401, 26 L.Ed. Moore v. Robbins, 96 U.S. 530, 533, 24 L.Ed. 848; French v. Fyan, 93 U.S. 169, 1......
-
United States v. Winona & St. P.R. Co., 564.
...Sup.Ct. 1030. The distinction between the two classes of cases is well illustrated by Best v. Polk, 18 Wall. 112, 117, 118, and Minter v. Crommelin, 18 How. 89. In the case a tract of land was sold by the land department, and patented to a purchaser in 1847. But a Chickasaw chief had perfec......