Willot v. Sandford

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search


Willot v. Sandford by John Catron
Syllabus
Court Documents
Opinion of the Court

United States Supreme Court

60 U.S. 79

WILLOT  v.  SANDFORD

THIS case was brought up, by writ of error, from the Circuit Court of the United States for the district of Missouri.

It was an action of ejectment brought by Sandford, a citizen of New York, to recover the following-described premises, viz:

A certain tract of land, containing 750 arpens, more or less, which was claimed by one Antoine Lamarche, as derived to him from the Government of Spain, was surveyed for said Lamarche by John Harvey, a deputy surveyor under the Government of the United States, and the plat of said survey duly certified by said Harvey, under date of December 20, 1805, and the same received for record by Antoine Soulard, surveyor general under the Government of the United States for the Territory of Louisiana, February 27, 1806; which said tract is situate, lying, and being on Lamarche's creek, alias Spencer's run, in St. Charles county, Missouri, and the claim thereto was duly confirmed to the said Antoine Lamarche, or his legal representatives, by an act of Congress entitled 'An act confirming claims to lands in the State of Missouri, and for other purposes,' approved July 4, 1836.

It is unnecessary to recite the evidences of title set forth upon the trial by the plaintiff and defendants, as they are set forth on both sides in the opinion of the court.

Amongst other rulings of the Circuit Court were the following, viz:

5. That the survey made by the United States surveyor, and on which issued the patent certificate and patent, is evidence of a high character that the land included in the survey is the same as that included in the confirmation to the legal representatives of Dissonet.

6. That said survey is not conclusive evidence that the land confirmed to the legal representatives of Dissonet was correctly located and surveyed by said survey.

7. If the jury, therefore, believe that the land sued for is not within the confirmation to the legal representatives of Dissonet, although it may be within the survey and patent, then such confirmation, survey, and patent, cannot protect said defendants in this suit.

It is not necessary to mention any of the other instructions or rulings of the Circuit Court.

The case was argued by Mr. Blair for the plaintiffs in error, and Mr. Lawrence for the defendant, upon which side there was also a brief filed by Mr. Glover.

Mr. Justice CATRON 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).