Filhiol v. Maurice

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search


Filhiol v. Maurice by Melville Fuller
Syllabus
Court Documents
Opinion of the Court

United States Supreme Court

185 U.S. 108

FILHIOL  v.  MAURICE

 Argued: March 5, 6, 1902. --- Decided: April 7, 1902

This was an action of ejectment brought by Hippolite Filhiol and others in the circuit court of the United States for the eastern district of Arkansas, against Charles E. Maurice, Charles G. Convers, and William G. Maurice, for the recovery of a parcel of land in the city of Hot Springs, Garland county, Arkansas, on the permanent reservation at Hot Springs described as Bath house sits No. 8, and for rent thereof as damages. Plaintiffs deraigned title as heirs at law of Don Juan Filhiol, to whom it was alleged the lands were granted February 22, 1788, by the then Spanish governor of the province of Louisiana, by virtue of which grant said Filhiol became the owner of a tract of 'about three miles square, embracing all the hot springs in the city of Hot Springs, Garland county, Arkansas,' and including the parcel of land for which plaintiffs brought suit. The complaint did not aver the citizenship of plaintiff or defendants, although the caption described plaintiffs as residents of several states other than Arkansas; but it was averred as follows: 'And for cause of action say that by the 5th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States and the 3d article of the treaty of the United States of America and the Republic of France, which was ratified on the 21st day of October, 1803, the United States undertook and agreed to maintain the said Don Juan Filhiol and his heirs in their right and title to the land in controversy and their full enjoyment of the same, but, in violation of the provisions of said treaty, and without due process of law, and in violation of the 5th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, defendants did, without condemnation and without compensation to plaintiffs, on or about the 2d day of January, 1807, wrongfully and without right, oust the plaintiffs from the possession of the land in controversy, and for more than two years last past have held possession, and they now hold possession, of the land in controversy, wrongfully and without right, and they refuse to surrender possession of the same to plaintiffs.' Defendants demurred to the complaint, on the ground that its allegations did not 'constitute a cause of action.'

The circuit court sustained the demurrer, and, plaintiffs electing to stand on their complaint and declining to amend, the complaint was dismissed with costs. A writ of error directly from this court was then allowed.

Messrs. William F. Vilas, Clifford S. Walton, J. H. McGowan, and Branch K. Miller for plaintiffs in error.

Assistant Attorney General Pradt and Mr. George H. Gorman for defendants in error.

Mr. Chief Justice Fuller delivered the opinion of the court:

Notes[edit]

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).