Imágenes de páginas


(NOTE BY THE REPORTER. The first forty-seven rules in Admiralty are printed in 3 Howard, and four additional ones in 10 Howard. The following were added at December Term, 1851.]

Ordered, that further proof, taken in a Circuit Court upon an admiralty appeal, shall be by deposition, taken before some commissioner appointed by a Circuit Court, pursuant to the acts of Congress in that behalf, or before some officer aut! zed to take depositions by the thirtieth section of the act of Congress of the 24th of September, 1789, upon an oral examination and cross-examination, unless the court in which such appeal shall be pending, or one of the judges thereof, shall, upon motion, allow a commission to issue to take such deposition upon written interrogatories and cross-interrogatories. When such deposition shall be taken by oral examination, a notification from the magistrate before whom it is to be taken, or from the clerk of the court in which such appeal shall be pending, to the adverse party, to be present at the taking of the same, and to put interrogatories if he think fit, shall be served on the adverse party or his attorney, allowing time for their attendance after being notified, not less than twenty-four hours, and, in addition thereto, one day, Sundays exclusive, for every twenty miles' travel

Provided, that the court in which such appeal may be pending, or either of the judges thereof, may, upon motion, increase or diminish the length of notice above required.

Ordered, that, when oral evidence shall be taken down by the clerk of the District Court, pursuant to the above-mentioned section of the act of Congress, and shall be transmitted to the Circuit Court, the same may be used in evidence on the appeal, saving to each party the right to take the depositions of the same witnesses, or either of them, if he should so elect.



295 218


Adams v. Tremlett
Austen et al. v. Miller
Ballance v, Forsyth et al.
Bank of Alabama v. Darrington et al.
Barrett et al. v. Williamson et al.
Barrow v. Hill
Beebe et al. v. Doe
Black v. Tyler et ux.
Bradford et al. v. Union Bank of Tennessee
Buckingham et al. v. McLean


18 12 101 54 25 231

57' 150 151

[blocks in formation]

Campbell et al. v. Doe
Caswell et al. v. Lawrence
Coffee v. Planters Bank of Tennessee
Crawford v. Points.
Crocker et al. v. Norris
Crofford v. McAfee et al.
Darrington et al. v. Bank of Alabama
Day v. Woodworth et al.
De Forest et al. v. Lawrence
Doe v. Beebe et al.
Doe v. Campbell et al.
Doe v. Taylor
Ferreira et al. v. United States
Forsyth et al. v. Ballance
Fowler v. Hart

[blocks in formation]

George et al, v: Weems
Glenn et al, v. United States :
Goddard v. Lord et al.
Goodall v. Tucker
Gray et al. 2:. McCormick
Hall v. Morsell
Harmony v. Mitchell
Hart v. Fowler
Hill v. Barrow
Hill v. Tucker
Hodge et al. v. United States
Hogan et al. v. Ross
Howard et al. v. Ingersoll
Howard v. Philadelphia, Wilmington, and Baltimore Railroad Company
Hughes v. United States

Same v. Samo

Same v. Same
Ingersoll v. Howard et al.
Jecker et al. v. Montgomery
Lawrence v. Caswell et al.
Lawrence v. De Forest et al.
Levy v. Very

173 381 307





488 274 315




441 198 71

Lindsley et al. v. Rogers
Lord et al. v. Goddard
Louisa Railroad Company o. Richmond &c. Railroad Company
McAfee et al. v. Crofford
McCormick v, Gray et al.
McCullagh et al. v. United States
McLean v. Buckingham et al.

Same v. Same
Miller v. Austen et al.
Mitchell v. Harmony
Montgomery v. Jecker et al.
Morsell v. Hall
Murphree et al. v. Parish et al.
Neves et al. v. Scott et al.
Norris v. Crocker et al.


27 216 •150 151 218 115 498 212 92

268 42)

92 519 307

9 472 183 11

71 472 441 283 173

229 268


Parish et al. v. Murphree et al.
Pennsylvania, State of, v. Wheeling &c. Bridge Company
Philadelphia, Wilmington, and Baltimore Railroad Company v. Howard
Pillerin et al. v. United States.
Pillow v. Roberts
Planters Bank of Tennessee v. Coffee .
Points v. Crawford
Richmond &c. Railroad Company v. Louisa Railroad Company
Roberts v. Pillow
Rogers v. Lindsley et al.
Rogers et al. v. Walsh et al.
Ross v. Hogan et al.
Saltmarsh v. Tuthill
Scott et al. v. Neves et al.
Taylor v. Doe
Trémlett v. Adams
Tucker v. Goodall
Tucker v. Hill
Tuthill v. Saltmarsh
Tyler et ux. v. Black
Union Bank of Tennessee v. Bradford et al.
United States v. Ferreira
United States v. Glenn et al.
United States v. Heirs of Don Carlos de Villemont
United States v. Hodge et al.
United States v. Hughes

v. Same Same

United States v. McCullagh et al.
United States v. Pillerin et al.
Very v. Levy
Villemont, Heirs of Don Carlos do, v. United States

[merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

Walsh et al. v. Rogers et al.
Weems v. Gcorge et al.
Wheeling &c. Bridge Company v. State of Pennsylvania
Williamson et al. v. Barrett ct al.
Woodworth ct al. v. Day

283 . .190

519 . 101







The UNITED STATES, Appellants, v. Joseph Hughes.

Where a grant of land, in Louisiana, was made by the Spanish governor, in Febru

ary 1799, but no possession was ever taken by the grantee, during the existence of the Spanish government, or since the cession to the United States; and no proof of the existence of the grant until 1835, when the grantee sold his interest to a third person; the presumption arising from this neglect is, that the grant, if

made, had been abandoned. The regulations of Gayoso, who made the grant, were, that the settler should forfeit

the land, if he failed to establish himself upon it within one year, and put ander labor ten arpents in every hundred within three years.

This was a land case, arising under the acts of 1824 and 1844, and brought up by appeal from the District Court of the United States, for the Eastern District of Louisiana.

The petition in this case was filed in the District Court of the United States, for the Eastern District of Louisiana, on the 16th day of June, 1846.

Hughes, the petitioner, represented therein that, on the petition of Joseph Guidry, the Spanish governor of Louisiana, Gayoso granted to him, (said Guidry,) on the 1st of February, 1799, a tract of land, having a front of 40 arpents on the Atchafalaya, with a depth of 40 arpents, adjoining the land of Andrè Martin, on the west bank of the said river, near where the Point Coupée trace from Opelousas, crosses said river. Petitioner further alleges that the said claim was presented to the board of commissioners, under the act of Congress of 6th of February, 1835, and reported on favorably, but never acted on by Congress; that the United States have sold none of said land, except a small part to John L. Daniel ; and that he, Hughes, has



The United States v. Hughes.

become owner of one thousand arpents of said grant by a chain of conveyances, &c.; he therefore prays for a decree confirming his title, &c.

The answer of the United States denies all the allegations of the petition.

Depositions to prove the genuineness of Gayoso's signature were given in evidence.

The chain of title to the petition was a conveyance from Guidry to Andrè Martin, on the 19th of April, 1837, and conveyance by Martin to Hughes, on the 1st of March, 1846.

The District Court confirmed the claim, and the United States appealed.

It was argued by Mr. Crittenden, (Attorney-General,) for the United States, and by Messrs. Janin and Taylor, for the appellee.

Mr. Justice NELSON delivered the opinion of the court.

This is an appeal from the decree of the District Court of the Eastern District of Louisiana. The plaintiff

, Hughes, in the court below, filed a petition, founded upon a Spanish claim, under the act of 17th of June, 1844, which revived the act of 26th of May, 1824, for the purpose of recovering a tract of sixteen hundred arpents of land, situate in Louisiana, on the Atchafalaya river, near where the Point Coupée road crosses the said river.

The petition states that the concession was made to one Joseph Guidry, on the 1st of February, 1799, by Governor Gayoso, under whom the plaintiff derives title.

The proofs in the case show, that the grant was made on the application of Guidry at the date mentioned; that he sold and assigned his interest in the same to one Andrè Martin, at the risk of the purchaser, 19th of April, 1835, who assigned the same to the plaintiff, 1st of March, 1846, in pursuance of a contract made with his agent in 1840. The latter purchase was also made at the risk of the purchasei.

This concession was an incomplete grant, and did not vest a perfect title to the property in the grantee, according to the Spanish usages and regulations, until a survey was made by the proper official authority, and the party thus put in possession, together, also, with a compliance with other conditions, if contained in the grant, or in any general regulations respecting the disposition of the public domain. Possession, with definite and fixed boundaries, was essential to enable him to procure from the proper Spanish authority a complete title. If, however, the concession itself contained a description of the land sufficient to enable

« AnteriorContinuar »