De Villemont v. United States

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
De Villemont v. United States, Hempst. 389 (D. Ark. 1848)
by the U.S. District Court for the District of Arkansas

De Villemont v. United States, Hempst. 389, 7 F. Cas. 560 (D. Ark. 1848) (No. 3839), before the Hon. Benjamin Johnson, District Judge, and aff'd sub nom. Heirs of De Vilemont v. United States, 54 U.S. (12 How.) 261 (1851).

United States District Court for the District of Arkansas

Hempst. 389

CATHARINE DE VILLEMONT, ET AL., heirs and legal representatives of DON CARLOS DE VILLEMONT, deceased,  v.  THE UNITED STATES, ET AL.

Court Documents
Opinion of the Court

In district court.
  1. Where precise locality is not given to a concession, a survey is necessary to sever the land from the royal domain.
  2. Surveys were necessary under the Spanish government.
  3. Case of Heirs of Elisha Winter v. United States, ante, p. 344, cited and approved.

In supreme court.

  1. In 1795, Baron de Carondelet, the governor-general of Louisiana, made a grant of land on the Mississippi River, upon condition that a road and clearing should be made within one year, and an establishment made on the land within three years; neither of which was complied with, nor was possession taken under the grant until after the cession of the country to the United States.
  2. The excuses for these omissions, namely, that the grantee was commandant at the post of Arkansas, and that the Indians were hostile, are insufficient; as he must have known these conditions when he obtained the grant.
  3. According to the principles established in Glenn & Thurston v. Unued States, 13 How. 250, the Spanish authorities would not have confirmed this grant; neither can this court do it.
  4. The grant is void, because the land cannot be located by a survey.

October, 1848.—Petition for the confirmation of a Spanish land claim, determined in the District Court, before the Hon. Benjamin Johnson, district judge, under the act of congress of June 17, 1844 (6 Stat. 676), reviving act of May 26, 1824 (4 Stat. 62).

A. Fowler, for the petitioners.

S. H. Hempstead, district attorney, for the United States.

Albert Pike and D. J. Baldwin, for Horace F. Walworth.

Daniel Ringo and F. W. Trapnall, for Mary B. Miles and James B. Miles.

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).