this or any former act, and to which no equitable title exists, in favour of any individual, under this or any other act, between high-water mark and the channel of the river, and between Church street and North Boundary street, in front of the said city, be, and the same are hereby, vested in the mayor and aldermen of the said city of Mobile, for the time being, and their successors in office, for the sole use and benefit of the said city forever.
Right and claim of the United States to other lots in said city, vested in the person to whom such alienation, grant, or order of survey was made.Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That all the right and claim of the United States to so many of the lots of ground, east of Water street, and between Church street and North Boundary street, nowof the lots east of Water street, and between Church street and North Boundary street, now known as water lots, as are situated between the channel of the river and the front of the lots, known under the Spanish government as water lots, in the said city of Mobile wherever improvements have been made, be, and the same are hereby, vested in the several proprietors and occupants of each of the lots heretofore fronting on the river Mobile, &c.” The city of Mobile claimed from the defendant in error the lot held by him, under the purchase from the United States, and the improvements before described; asserting that the same was vested in the city by the first section of the act of 1824. Held, that under the provisions of the second section of the act, the defendant in error claiming under the purchase made under the act of 1818, and under the act of 1824, was entitled to the lot. The city of Mobile v. Eslava, 16 Peters, 261.
The right relinquished by the United States was to the water lots “lying east of Water street, and between Church street and North boundary street, now known as water lots, as are situated between the channel of the river and the front of the lots, known under the Spanish government as water lots, in the said city of Mobile, wherever improvements have been made.” The improvements refer to the water and not the front lots. A reasonable construction of the act requires, the improvements to have been made or owned by the proprietor of the front lot, at the time of the passage of the act. Being proprietor of the front lot, and having improved the water lot opposite and east of Water street, constitute the condition on which the right under the statute vests. Ibid.A grant by the Spanish government confirmed by the United States, was made of a lot of ground in the city of Mobile, running from a certain boundary eastwardly to the river Mobile. The land adjacent to this lot, and extending from high-water mark to the channel of the river, in front of the lot, was held by the grantee as appurtenant to the last and above high-water mark. The city of Mobile instituted an action to recover the same, asserting a title to it under the act of Congress of May 26, 1824, granting certain lots of ground to the corporation of the city of Mobile, and to certain individuals in the said city. The city of Mobile v. Hallett, 16 Peters, 261.Ejectment to recover possession of a lot in the city of Mobile, Alabama. The defendants, in the circuit court, claimed title to the land under Lucy Landry, who was the devisee of one Geronio; who having been in possession of the lot at the corner of St. Francis and Royal streets, occupied it until his death. On the arrival or Lucy Landry at age, she occupied the lot as her own property; and in 1818, she sold and conveyed it by deed to certain persons; stating the eastern boundary in the deed to be the Mobile river. These persons, on the same day, conveyed the premises to Oliver Holman, who entered on it and improved it, by erecting houses and a wharf upon it; and continued to occupy it as a merchant in co-partnership with one Charles Brown, who lived in Boston, until December, 1822, when he died; leaving, as his heirs, the lessors of the plaintiff. The possession of Lucy Landry, of the lot, commenced in 1800, and extended on Royal street, and on the east followed the high-water mark on the river. The land was not subject to inundation, though in many places the water ran across it. Until the improvements made by Holman, the lot was not susceptible of occupancy. There was a ridge of high land formed of shells and artificial deposits, to the east of which, to the river, the lot was situated; and the ridge was protected by the Spanish authorities, no person being permitted by them to improve on the ground or to remove the earth. It was called “The King’s Highway,” or landing place. Questions as to the title of the proprietors of the adjacent lots above Water street to the lots extending to the river, prevailed until 1824; when on the 26th May, 1824, a law was passed, which granted the lots, known as the water lots under the Spanish government, to the owners of the adjacent grounds. The improvements were made by Holman in 1819 or 1820. The defendants below gave in evidence, to maintain their title, the title to them from Lucy Landry, through her grantees to Oliver Holman: a title bond from Holman to Brown, for half of the lot in controversy, by which a deed was to be executed two years after the date of the bond; and an act of the legislature of Alabama, passed in December, 1823, after the decease of Holman, authorizing the administratrix of Holman, then residing in Boston, where administration of the state of the deceased had been granted to her, to sell the real estate of which he died seised, in the city of Mobile, for the payment of his debts, the estate being insolvent: a deed made in pursuance of a sale of the premises, under the act of assembly and in conformity to the provisions thereof; and also the record of certain proceedings in the supreme court of Massachusetts, wherein a license was given to the administratrix to make a deed, in pursuance of the title bond to Brown, and the deed, made under this authority. The questions which arose in the case, and on which the court decided, where: First, whether the act of the legislature of Alabama, authorizing the sale of the estate of Holman, was constitutional and valid. Second, whether the proceedings in the supreme court of Massachusetts were operative, and authorized the administratrix to convey the title. Third, whether a volume of state papers, published under the authority of Congress, was evidence. Fourth, whether the lessors of the plaintiff below had established a legal title. Fifth, whether the defendants in the circuit court had not established a title in themselves, independent of and adverse to the title they had derived under Oliver Holman. The act of Congress of May 26, 1824, relinquished the rights of the United States, whatever they were, in the lot in question, to the proprietor of the front lot. Watkins v. Holman et al., 16 Peters, 25.