Imágenes de páginas


! may resort to the eyully furysulcica of the United

States Court for relief.
See Ejectment, 2, 3.


(540) 454
See Local Law.

3. Under the cession act of North Carolina of

1789, cb. 3, ratified by the act of Congress of 1790,

ch. 33, the United States held the domain of the

vacant lands in Tennessee, subject to the right
The act of assembly of Maryland, prohibiting the which North Carolina retained of perfecting the
importation of slaves into that state for sale, or to inchoate titles created under her laws.
resi does not extend to a temporary residence,


(536) 453
nor to an importation by a birer, or person other 4. The act of North Carolina of 1803, ch. 3,
than the master or owner of such slave.

grants to Tennessee, irrevocably, the power of per-
Henry v. Ball,

(3) 21 | fecting titles to land reserved to North Carolina by

the cession act, and is assented to by Congress, in

their act of 1806, ch. 31.

(Ib.) 453
See Treaty, 6, 7, 8.

5. The act of Congress of 1806, ch. 31, does not

violate the cession act.


(ib.) 454
See Constitutional Law, 6, 7.


See Covenant, 1.

See Ejectment, 4.
1. The act of assembly of North Carolina, of

1777, establishing offices for receiving entries of
claims for lands in the several counties of the See Chancery, 26, 28.
state, did not authorize entries for lands within the See Local Law.
Indian boundary, as defined by the treaty of the
Long Island of Holston, of the 20th of July, 1777. STATUTES OF RHODE ISLAND-1.
The act of April, 1778, is a legislative declaration,
explaining and amending the former act, and no A discharge, according to the act of the legisla-
title is acquired by an entry contrary to these laws.

ture of Rhode Island, for the relief of poor prison-
Preston V. Browder,


50 ers for debt, although obtained by fraud and per-
2. 'The acts of assembly of North Carolina, jury, is a lawful discharge, and not an escape;
passed between the year 1783 and 1789, avoid all and, upon sach a discharge, no action can be main
entries, surveys, and grants of lands, set apart for tained upon a bond for the liberty of the prison.
the Cherokee Indians, and no title can be thereby yard.
acquired to such lands.

Ammidon v. Smith et al., (447) 132
Danforth's Lessee v. Thomas, (155) 59
3. The boundaries of the reservation have been

altered by successive treaties with the Indians : but

1. Under the act of the legislature of Tennessee
it seems that the mere extinguishment of their title passed in 1797, to explain an act of the legislature
did not subject the land to appropriations, unless of North Carolina of 1715, a possession of seven
expressly authorized by the legislature.

years is a bar only when held under a grant, or a

(Ib.) 59

deed, founded on a grant.
See Statutes of Tennessee.

Patton's Lessee y. Easton, (476) 139

The act of assembly, vesting, lands in the trus-

tees of the town of Nashville, is a grant of those
1. Where the plaintiffs in ejectment claimed up

lands; and where the defendant showed no title

under the trustees, nor under any other grant, his
der a grant from the state of North Carolina, com- possession of seven years was beld insufficient to
prehending the lands for which the suit
brought, and the defendants claimed under a jun protect his title, or bar that of the plaintiff under

a conveyance from the trustees.
ior patent, and a possession of seven years, which,


(Ib.) 139
by the statutes of that state and Tennessee, consti-
tutes a bar to the action, if the possession be un-

2. Where the plaintiff in ejectment claimed lands
der color of title. To repel this defense, the plain- state, dated the 26th April, 1809, founded on an

in the state of Tennessee, under a grant from said
tiffs proved that no corner or course of the grant, entry made in the entry-takers office of Washing:
under which they claimed, was marked, except the
beginning corner; that the beginning, and nearly the name of J. M'Dowell, on which a warrant is-

ton county, dated the 2d of January, 1779, in
the whole land, and all the corners, except one,

sued on the 17th of May, 1779, to the plaintiff, as
were within the Cherokee Indian boundary, not assignee of J. M'Dowell, and the defendants
having been ceded to the United States until the

claimed under a grant from the state of North
year 1806, within seven years from which time the Carolina, dated the 9th of August, 1787, it was de-
suit was brought, but the land in the defendant's
possession, and for which the suit was brought, a junior grant, so as to overreach an elder grant,

termined that the prior entry might be attached to
did not lie within the Indian boundary. It was
held that, notwithstanding the laws of the United

and that a survey having been made, and a grant

issued upon M'Dowell's entry, in the name of the
States prohibited all persons from surveying or
marking any lands within the Indian territory, and plaintiff, calling him assignee of M'Dowell, was
the plaintitřs could not therefore survey the lands prima facie evidence that the entry was the plain-

tiff's property, and that a warrant is sufficiently
granted to them, the defendants were entitled to
hold the part possessed by them for the period of identified by the testimony, or unless the calls

certain to be sustained, if the objects called for are
seven years under color of title.

would equally well suit more than one place.
M'Iver et al v. Rayan et al. (25) 175

Ross and Morrison v. Reed, (482) 141
2. A question relative to the title of the late Ma-
jor-General Nathaniel Greene, to 25,000 acres of

land given to him, within the bounds of the land
reserved for the use of the army, by the 10th sec- 1. By the compact of 1802, settling the boundary
tion of the act of the legislature of North Carolina, line between Virginia and Tennesseee, and the laws
passed in 1782, as a mark of the sense entertained made in pursuance thereof, it is declared that all
by that state of his eminent services.

claims and titles to lands derived from Virginia,
Rutherford y. Greene's heirs, (196) 218 or North Carolina, or Tennessee, which have fallen

into the respective states, shall remain as secure
STATUTES OF NORTH CAROLINA—3. to the owners thereof as if derived from the gov.

ernment within whose boundary they have fallen,
1. The state of North Carolina, by her act of ces- and shall not be prejudiced or affected by the es.
sion of the western lands, of 1789, ch. 3, recited in tablishment of the line. Where the titles both of
the act of Congress of 1790, ch. 33, accepting that the plaintiff and defendant in ejectment were de-
cession, and by her act of 1803, ch. 3. ceding to rived under grant from Virginia, to lands which
Tennessee the right to issue grants, has parted fell within the limits of Tennessee, it was held,
with her right to issue grants for lands within the that a prior settlement-right thereto, which would,
state of Tennessee, upon entries made before the in equity, give the party a title, could not be as-

serted as a sufficient title in an action of ejectment
Burton v. Williams,

(529) 452 brought in the Circuit Court of Tennessee.
2. But it seems, that the holder of such a grant

Robinson v. Campbell,

(212) 373
2. Although the state courts of Tennessee bave and the proprietary interest in the ship may be
decided, that, under their statutes (declaring an proved by other equivalent testimony. But if upon
elder grant founded on a junior entry to be void), the original evidence, the cause appears extremely
a junior patent founded on a prior entry shall pre- doubtful and suspicious, and further proof is nec-
vail at law against a senior patent founded on a essary, the grant or denial of it rests on the same
junior entry, this doctrine has never been extend general rules which govern the discretion of prize
ed beyond cases within the express purview of the courts in other cases.
statute of Tennessee, and could not apply to titles

The Pizarro,

(244, 245) 230
deriving all their validity from the laws of Vir- 2. The term “subjects," in the 15th article of
ginia, and confirmed by the compact between the i the treaty, when applied to persons owing alle-
two states.

giance to Spain, must be construed in the same
Robinson v. Campbell,

(212) 373 sense as the term "citizens" or "inhabitants," when
3. The general rule is, that remedies in respect applied to persons owing allegiance to the United
to real property are to be pursued according to the States, and extends to all persons domiciled in
lex loci rei sitæ. The statutes of the two states the Spanish dominions.
are to be construed as giving the same validity and


(245) 230
effect to the titles in the disputed territory as they 3. The Spanish character of the ship being ascer-
had, or would have, in the state by which they tained, the proprietary interest of the cargo cannot
were granted, leaving the remedies to enforce such be inquired into, unless so far as to ascertain that
titles to be regulated by the lex fori.

it does not belong to citizens of the United States,

(219) 375 whose property engaged in trade with the enemy
4. In the above case, it was held, that the stat. is not protected by the treaty.
ute of limitations of Tennessee was not a good bar


(246) 231
to the action, there being no proof that the lands 4. The privilege of the neutral flag of protecting
in controversy were always within the original | enemy's property, conferred by treaty or other-
liraits of Tennessee, and the statute could not begin wise, does not extend to a fraudulent use of the
to run until it was ascertained by the compact of flag.
1802 that the land fell within the jurisdictional

Id. note 1,

(247) 231
liraits of Tennessee

5. The stipulation of the Spanish treaty, taken

(224) 376 in connection with the law of Spain, does not

necessarily imply the converse proposition that

enemy's ships shall make enemy's goods, wbich is

not expressed in the treaty.
1. Under the act of assembly of Virginia, of the

Id. note 1,

(248) 231
22d of December, 1794, secs. 6 and 8, property 6. The treaty of amity and commerce of 1778
pledged to the Mutual Assurance Society, etc., con- with France, art 11, enabling French subjects to
tinues liable for assessments, on account of the purchase and hold lands in the United States, being
losses insured against, in the hands of a bona fide abrogated in 1798; the act of Maryland of 1780,
purchaser, without notice.

permitting the lands of a French subject, who had
The Mutual Assurance Society v. Watt's become a citizen of that state, dying intestate, to

(279) 91

descend on the next of kin being non-naturalized
2. A mere change of sovereignty produces no Frenchmen, with a proviso vesing the land in the
change in the state of rights existing in the soil, state, if the French heirs should not within ten
and the cession of the District of Columbia to the years become resident citizens of the state, or con-
national government, did not affect the lien cre. vey the lands to a citizen ; and the convention of
ated by the above act on real property, situate in 1800 between the United States and France, enab-
the town of Alexandria, though the personal char; ling the people of the one country holding lands in
acter or liability of a member of the society could the other to dispose of the same by testament, and
not be thereby forced on a purchaser of such to inherit lands in the other without being natural-

ized: held, that the latter treaty dispensed with

(Ib.) 91 | the performance of the condition in the act of
3. See Statutes of Kentucky.

Maryland, and that the conventional rule applied

equally to the case of those who took by descent

under the act, as to those who acquired by pur-
See Local Law, 2, 3.

chase without its aid.

T. C. F. Chirac v. the lessee of A. F. Chirac

et al.

(259) 234

7. The further stipulation in the convention,
See Local Law, 1.

that in case the laws of either of the two states
should restrain strangers from the exercise of the
rights of property with respect to real estate, such

real estate may be sold, or otherwise disposed of,

to citizens or inhabitants of the country where it

may be," does not affect the rights of a French
1. See Domicile, 2.

subject who takes, or holds, by the convention, so
2. See Prize, 5.

as to deprive him of the power of selling to citizens
3. See License, 1.

of this country; and gives to a French subject,

who has acquired lands by descent, or devise (and,

perhaps, in any other manner), the right, during

life, to sell, or otherwise dispose of the same, if ly-
See License, 2.

ing in a state where lands purchased by an alien,

generally, would be immediately escheatable.


(276) 238
See License, 1.

8. Although the convention of 1800 has expired,

the instant a descent is cast on a French subject

during its continuance, his rights become complete

under it, and cannot be affected by its subsequent
Under the 9th article of the treaty of 1794, be expiration.


(277) 238
tween the United States and Great Britain, by
which it is provided that British subjects, holding

9. Modification of the droit d'aubain in France
lands in the United States, and their heirs, so far by treaties with other powers.

Id. note 1,

(271) 237
as respects those lands, and the remedies incident
thereto, should not be considered as aliens; the
parties must show that the title to the land for

which the suit was commenced was in them, or
their ancestors, at the time the treaty was made. 1. G. C., born in the colony of New York, went
Harnden v. Fisher,

(300) 96 to England in 1738, where he resided until his de-

cease; and being seized of lands in New York, he,

on the 30th November, 1776, in England, devised

the same to the defendant, and E. C., as tenants
1. Under the Spanish treaty of 1795, stipulating in common, and died so seized on the 10th Decem-
that free ships shall make free goods, the want of ber, 1776. The defendant, and E. C., having en-
such a sea-letter or passport, or such certificates tered, and becoming possessed, E. C., on the 3d
as are described in the 17th article, is not a sub- December, 1791, bargained and sold to the defend-
stantive ground of condemnation. It only au- ant all his interest. The defendant and E. C. were
thorizes capture and sending in for adjudication, both born in England long before the revolution.
4 L. ed.



See Allen.
See Prize, 12.

On the 224 March, 1791, the legislature of New
York passed an act to enable the defendant to pur-
chase lands, and the hold all other lands which
he might then be entitled to within the state, by
purchase or descent, in fee-simple, and to sell and
dispose of the same in the same manner as any
natural born citizen might do. The defendant, at
the time of the action brought, still continued to
be a British subject. Held, that he was entitled,
under the 9th section of the treaty of 1794, be-
tween the United States and Great Britain, to hold
the lands so devised to him by G. C. and trans-
ferred to him by E. C. Jackson, ex dem.

See Practice, 6.
See Pleading, 7.

The People of New York v. Clarkę1) 819

See Allen

See Pleading, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8,

Wheat. 1, 2, 3,

« AnteriorContinuar »