*1 TERM, Í93 DECEMBER Lytle et al. State Arkansas et al. v. of and to ihe clerk cer- was prosecute appeal,
Bond given to be a true record copy tifies the proceedings. from the of can be taken final decision a State
No appeal under the section of the resort, last judi- court of twenty-fifth A Court of the States. writ United act, Supreme ciary can We refer of cause. ap- error alone up bring for the mode. of Curtis’s pendix Digest is the case dismissed. It ordered that Lytle Lydia Cloyes, L. his Wife, Nathan H. Robinson Arkan- Error, Plaintiffs v. the State others, B. Bertrand, others. sas, Charles land validity entry of an State court Where the decision this court States, proper had been allowed officers of United act, that to revise judiciary the 25th section jurisdiction, has under fact or invalidity upon whether the decreed judgment, law. courts and receiver to revision m the register subject is adjudication that justice, proofj showing entry on was obtained fraud the. of false those as to settlement and cultivation. imposition testimony officers, has so decided heretofore. This court below, raised the court of a bona questions purchase Over of the effect fide of limitations, and of statute this court jurisdiction. has no But the evidence shows that the entry by false affidavits as to res- obtained Supreme idence and cultivation. The Court of is therefore affirmed.
This case was from the Court of brought State of Arkansas a writ of error issued under the 25th sec- tion act. It was a case, but chancery correctly writ error. See case of up by Verden brought preceding Coleman. It before this court at a term, preceding reported w^ts
in 9 will be Howard, “It perceived, referring 314.x case, that this court decided of 1830 pre-emption .act. conferred certain settlers rights upon public lands, upon of settlement made improvement, satis-. being xxn.
vol. COURT. SUPREME
Lytle et al. et al. v. State Arkansas the rales faction of receiver, agreeably Office. Land General Commissioner of the prescribed *2 And final, impeached their unless decision must considered be The Howard, 9 383. fraud or unfairness. ground then now principal point was, recog- decided entry nised was and obtained false as to residence affidavits by cultivation.
The 9 back to as in cause, Howard, decided having gone Arkansas, the bill new amended, was and various parties, both Most and were introduced. complainants defendants, of the some answered; defendants taken decrees were of those as to who did bills dismissed answer, not and the other.
The State court decided questions upon many decision this final, and be reviewed by not subject court The under the 25th act. of the prin- section cipal one before this im- was, court whether or not Cloyes on the posed and receiver false affidavits by cultivation and residence.
The case was this Mr. in court Bradley, argued upon brief filed himself, Mr. Stilwell plaintiffs error, and Mr. Watkins Mr. Pike for the defendants in error, which side upon there was filed a also written argument Mr. Hempsteai;
The which were filed were arguments voluminous, and very record contained a thousand nearly printed pages. opinion Supreme Court of Arkansas from was, that, cause, claim set in the bill and is fraudulent in fact and law; this to be sought reversed this court. The evidence constituted a upon question of record.' large part of this court refers to a opinion portion it, the residue it the does not intend reporter to touch. The counsel for in error plaintiff* contended that the decree of the land officers, whilst it stands, is conclusive toas the title of the pre- him; and those under that not emptioner claiming could be DECEMBER TERM, et et al. v. State Arkansas al.
Lytle but for fraud could collaterally, beimpeached impeached bill; either an or cross in direct proceeding, by original as the defendants had so that, impeached attempted canuot it, about fraud as speak permitted impeach matter of defence. mere Howard, 43, authorities there cited. 'sides, The views of the counsel on both of this case, were as jurisdiction follows: The counsel for the error said: plaintiff'in It be insisted that this court has no jurisdiction case.
Had Court of Arkansas affirmed the simply decree of the court of there would jurisdiction, original appear (cid:127) more in this; then, we think plausibility though, juris- *3 diction clear.
The set right up in error under an arises plaintiffs act of and the decision of Congress, Court óf Supreme Arkansas was this court has against right; consequently, jurisdiction of the case, without regard particular which the ground jipon decree the State court is based.
14 Howard’s Rep., v. et
Cunningham al., ib., 98. Ashley 1 Howard’s Rep., of Mobile v. Emanuel. City The out of an act right grows and is sanctioned Congress, all laws and udicial against j decisions of the States.
5 Cranch’s 344, Rep., v. Norwood’s Owings Lessee.
5 Peters’s 257, Fisher’s v. Rep., Lessor Cockerell. or, It is sufficient that the of a validity of, statute treaty, an exercised under the authority of the United authority States, was drawn in question, the decision was against their validity.
1 Wheaton's Rep., 304, 322, Martin 352, v. Hunter’s
Lessee, et seq. R.,
3 Condensed 474. Same ease. The evidence for defence was admitted, the purpose claimed impeaching under act right of Congress, to them granted the land officers under' it; acting
196 SUPREME COURT.
Lytle et al. State et al. court, decision State the effect consequently, such evidence, considered and the de- here, fully cree reversed or affirmed.
4 447, Howard’s v. Dillon. Rep., Mackay reverse a revise and decision of a power State of his State transfer ease from depriving party court to a has trial, Circuit Court of United States for been exercised.
14 Howard’s 103, Gordon v. Rep., Longest. In v. Neilson Howard’s the plaintiff. Lagow, Rep., claimed the Secre- land under exercised authority States, tary behalf of the United Treasury decision was exer-' thus against validity authority Tandy cised; and on motion to dismiss, Chief Justice said:. “We think it is for in of the cases evidently prescribed one. section of the act of the-twenty-fifth 1789.” In this case, exercised decision an authority against receiver, subordinates of the Secretary of but under same Treasury, authority. jurisdiction exists wherever the laws of Congress the acts of officers titles to them in executing perfecting lands have been drawn in and construed public Court State, and the decision title set under the ex- laws the authority Congress ercised under .them.
19 Howard’s 207, Cousin v. Blanc’s Executors. Rep., In Millaudon, 704, Mr. McDonogh Howard’s Rep., Justice said: “Did final draw ques Catron the' tion construction of a the United statute of treaty *4 States, anof exercised under the same, authority o.r the decision against of either title validity against set under either? If these right up arc answered question's in the it follows we that have no to re negative, jurisdiction examine or reverse the under the sec judgment twenty-fifth tion of the act.”
Hence, it must follow, if answered necessarily, affirmatively them, one of the' court would have jurisdiction. in filis case claim under authority exercised plaintiffs
DECEMBER TERM, 1859* Lytle et al. v. Arkansas et al. Stale of under a statute States, of tlie United and a set undei right it, decision was them. against v. Garland was
"Wynn to this in similar every respect, question over without notice. passed 20 Howard’s Rep.,
In order to- jurisdiction, sufficient, it is if the record give that shows, it is clear from the facts and neces- stated, just sary inference, made, that the and that the State question court must, in order to arrived at the have pro- nounced it, have decided that indispensable that judgment.
10 Peters 392, Crowell v. Rep., Randell.
1 id. Rep., 250, Wilson et al. v. the Blackbird C. M. Com
pany. 1 Wheaton’s 355, Martin Hunter’s Rep., Lessee. 4 id. 311, Miller Rep., v. Nichols.
12 id. 117, Williams v. Rep., Norris. The jurisdiction must be reference to the "determined-by' record. And in so,-the court will refer to the doing opinion of the State court, where it made a is pai’t record by the laws of the. State.
19 Howard’s 207, Cousin v. Blanc’s Rep., Executors. In this case, there is no in the first instance, of necessity, behind the decree of the Court of looking Supreme Arkansas, to determine the ; if but, be, the decision need we ground back chancellor, look to the decision thé whose decree was affirmed Court of Arkansas, and shall find he that all overruled the defences set the inva- up, except claim of lidity Cloyes. (His opinion of, made a record—see Gould’s the Laws part Digest Arkansas, sec. fact that the Su- p. Certainly 17.) Court decided preme plaintiffs, upon fraudulent, it was cannot oust ground jurisdiction. If that court had refused the relief because showed -that never or cultivated the case land, the occupied '; be the would same because the want of culti- possession the, vation, constituted fraud. The eyes .dea of fraud cannot be the act of disconnected from Congress. *5 198 SUPREME COURT.
Lytle el al. v. State Arkansas et al. was fraud, If there it was a fraud the upon law, upon the United States her land officers. through
The decision the the being against Court right, has to re-examine jurisdiction case, the determine, not whether the decision was the right upon particular ground, but whether the denied. The decree properly right the State court would have not it is, been what if there had not been decision set against right up plaintiffs; is all sufficient. 124, Williams v.
12 Howard Rep., Oliver et al. 292,
3 Peters
302.
Rep.,
And the decision
the State court need
confined
the construction of the
exclusively
especially
act
treaty
in&c.,
order to give jurisdiction.
Congress,
124, Williams v. Oliver.
Howard
Rep.,
arise,
Points
out of and connected with the
growing
and so blended
it as
with
not to be
question,
separated,
general
and therefore
within
decision
falling equally
contemplated
of Smith v. the State
The case
section.
twenty-fifth
and Martin Hunter’s
Cranch, 281,
Maryland,
Lessee,
355,
The counsel for defendant in error, Watkins, made point upon question jurisdiction following this court this case: a writ of error a-
On from State where no law it is not' the of this court presented, province duty to review decision of an fact made issue of merely, below, with its facilities for superior determining ffiet according weight credibility testimony. TE KM,
DECEMBER JLu9 et al. Lytte State el al. act of were
By allowed appeals *6 from the District to Circuit Courts. There was no mode case court, to this writ of bringing up error. any except by
Blain v. 4 22. Dallas, Carter, Ship The terms, and error, writ of used appeal though act, by were not confounded. is .An á civil-law appeal proceeding, which removes the cause and is a entirely, on the rehearing facts as well as the law. Dallas,
Wischart v. 3 Danchy, The act of 1789 great object to confine court appellate this jurisdiction examination and decision of law, on errors questions and assigned made to appear the record. section upon nineteen, By Circuit Courts in were to cause the facts, equity required which upon founded they decree, to appear upon record, either statement of such facts or by by parties, court where could not to a agree, being analogous special verdict or case stated in trials at law. This regulation appears to have been with some regarded jealousy, according of the report case last v. cited, as (Wischart con- Danchy,) the Circuit Courts in power on ferring which chancery, be abused a determination of facts might to or contrary warranted That 'evidence. led to the probably feeling of the of 3d March, 1803, act for providing passage appeal, in from the Circuit Courts to this causes, chancery court, should contain all on such transcript appeal plead- in evidence, the cause. depositions, documentary ings, from 1803, act of its apparent policy history, review correct to enable court to was, this any gross in Courts, questions fact, error Circuit determining evidence. principle without pervading, this court exercise of partially appellate jurisdiction in no appeal innovated I chancery upon. apprehend deference to the without court, opinion ever decided this the cause the facts Court, Circuit which tried upon ; while, establish on the other conduced to evidence law are exam- their errors misconstructions freely hand, that in usually And theory, prac- ined. considering 200 SUPREME COURT.
Lytle et al. State et al. has all tice, circuit, of this court at the he' justice presides causes, afforded opportunities equity admiralty at a conclusion the facts. arriving just upon 444, all the Peters, In cases from Bedford, Parsons v. 3 of 26th this court refused to the act (where give efficacy 1824, as an civil-law for the May, wedge practice entering re-ex Louisiana, called on- to court would be whereby amine v. facts ascertained to Minor below,) 481, Tillotson, Howard, Howard, Holme, Fenn this court has resisted all efforts perseveringly engraft the Federal the civil-law or the Judiciary practice, mongrel and other new Texas States. systems But, of it, view the act of 1803 to writs does not apply of error from a State umjer 25th section of the judi- *7 act. And to the construction ciary according repeatedly given this court, the distinction and between touching appeal of a writ error, where terms are used in acts of Con- those court, is on a examinable writ of error this gress, nothing as one of error in jurisdiction, appellate of except questions In law. view the of of law so call- modern reforms, tendency make ed, to law civil to assimilate in all equity, pleadings to causes forms of a chancery answer, complaint, the record upon a crude mass of reply, bring testimony, it seems this to court proper consider whether such inno- vations shall be suffered to its own usefulness. The impair time, of ripe experience learning, judges court in the world to highest appellate belong country, and need not be wasted in the investigation paltry questions fact, which are no concern beyond immediate parties of such a dispute. would imposition duty only be subversive of the is theory appellate but one jurisdiction, which an court is not appellate competent When perform. this cause in 9 Howard, the facts confessed the de- tried a murrer in nut-shell. The lay decision is and im- interesting as an portant affirmance of the doctrine, that an inchoate right is vested under law not defeated aby subsequent act of the land. Congress record, But on granting suppose here court to enter of facts, re-examination and after upon a TERM,
DECEMBER el Lytle al. State et al. laborious collation of and without patient testimony,
indeed those aids attendant the court which tried the cause,-and could witnesses, atmosphere breathing their worth ar- instinctively should appreciate credibility, rive at the conclusion the claim of was unfounded Oloyes in fact, and fraudulent, decision, no question settling law, would not be it, I take place worthy the,reports. that amid all and fluctuations in changes jurisprudence States, 'the principle appellate jurisdiction governing of this should remain so that whatever mode unchanged; be trial the local provided tribunals, and to have i’esorted, the parties ascertainment of a accord- fact, to the mode is ing as final and con- provided, regarded clusive of the fact.
I venture submit-, is to a technical according veiw of the act that this court has any'jurisdiction true, It is that because the premises. in error plaintiffs claim under a law of the decision Congress, against, come claimed, within the terms of the literally 25th séction; court, so that the its re- according practice, might fuse to entertain motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction, and out of abundant caution reserve the until the final Doubtless, if the in error argument. plaintiffs can put error or misconstruction of law the chancellor finger in the fact, or, determination of the in other words, can show that he those acts of fraudulent, the claimant as regarded which, of this opinion to its con- according law, so, struction of the were not then the decision of the *8 below would be court examinable for that error. But, apart from of all other of consideration elements mala one Jides, fact, essential ascertained and decided is, the court below, did not cultivate in 1829. While that determina- Oloyes there stands, tion never was there any right, consequently is no jurisdiction. if of the court a re-ex- pleasure into
Finally, go amination of the entire error, the defendants in testimony, whom'I represent, it, invite and are content confidently n eferto the of the evidence contained in the decis- exposition COURT. SUPREME et al. v. State Arkansas et uH.
Lytle of Arkansas, of and in Court and Supreme chancellor ions Mr. Hempstead. of the argument delivered of the court. opinion CATRON Justice Mr. is, the record on whether this presented The first question examine and revise the decision has jurisdiction Arkansas writ of error, under the Court the Supreme The act? arises on question section of 25th facts: following ancestor of the en- principal complainants,
Nathan Cloyes, office in Arkansas, a land at fractional an tered as occupant, under the land, acts of section quarter The fraction Little adjoined 1830 and village was for side, and acres. eastern The twenty-nine on its Rock in 1833 been United land had States to patented same Arkansas, Governor to be Territory Pope, ap- John erection of for said Terri- public buildings propriated claimed to have an heirs of earlier tory. equity, than that of the their Governor force of pre-emption right, Arkansas. in the State court, filed their bill proper equity They That bill contained appropriate enforce equity. allega- title and the to exhibit plaintiffs, tions equitable op- and thus to enable courts to patentee, posing the defendants demurred bill; them. Some of to the' compare the facts of settlement answered, and cul- others denying tivation, the bona fides purchase pleading of limitations. statute the bill on the demurrer; dismissed courts of court, and in this reversed cause re-
which judgment Arkansas, 9 How., Lytle further manded for proceedings. time, a second courts hearing 314. It prepared and the bill, cause is a dismissed of Arkansas have again time second before us. its merits below: and the
The cause heard fully he obtained on the claim Cloyes rejected, ground law; is, fraud in and fraud fact entry general reform this decree? Tt we take can jurisdiction, *9 TERM, DECEMBER et al. v. State Arkansas et
Lytle
al>
and,
title
it is
our
not material
-ejected
Cloyes;
opinion,
whether the
of the title was decreed in the
invalidity
Supreme
Court of Arkansas
of fact
question
or of law. The
fact that the title was
in that
rejected
court authorizes this
re-examine the decree.
The decision in the Court of Arkansas drew in exercised under question authority United States, to wit: that of to make his admitting Cloyes and the entry;, its decision was and overthrew validity, title, against is therefore to be re-examined, and subject reversed or affirmed aqd in this all the court, on pleadings which proofs immedi- respect exercise of ately question proper authority .the the officers sale of the administering public lands on of the United States. the part the case Martin Hunter’s against Lessee,
In (1 Whea., construction of the 25th 352,) foregoing section of the act of 1789 was and has judiciary recognised, been followed in the eases of Choteau since, Eckhart, against How., (2 372,) How., Ashley, against Garland Cunningham (14 377,) How., other cases. Wynn, (20 6,) , Another question preliminary presented on this record, whether the adjudication namely: receiver, heirs authorized to enter the Cloyes’s land, is subject to revision the courts of justice, proof? that the showing was obtained fraud and the entry imposition false testi- officers, on those as to settlement mony and cultivation. We deem this too well settled in the question affirmative for dis- cussion. It was so treated in the case of Cunningham against How., in Bernard Ashley, (14 377;) again, against Ashley, How., in the case of (18 43;) conclusively, Garland against How., Wynn, 8.) (20 next is, how far we can re-examine the pro- in the State courts.
ceedings answers, In respondents on the act of rely limita of the State of tions Arkansas for protection. As this is a defence no connection with the title of having Cloyes, court cannot revise decree below in this respect, under 25th section of the act. COURT. SUPREME. State al.
Lytle et et al. *10 of the also relied defendants in their answers .on Many fact that were bona tide the lots of land they purchasers are for, sued and therefore no decree can be they made here to oust' them of their The State courts found possessions. that a number of the were without respondents purchasers claim, notice of and entitled to as bona tide Cloyes’s protection to the rules on purchasers, courts of acted according equity. With this of the portion decree we have no to interfere, power as the defence set is within the in the restriction found section, no 25th which declares “that concluding part other error shall bo or this court as assigned regarded of reversal, than ground such as respects immediately before-mentioned questions or construction validity treaties, Constitution, authorities, statutes, commissions, in Mr. dispute.” Justice on the re comments Story foregoing clause, in Lessee, the ease of Martin straining Hunter’s (1 Whea., which construction we need 358,) repeat. on and Cloyes
Whether receiver imposed false affidavits, 1829, when he and made cultivation residence on 1830, the land in the 29th of is dispute May, He made oath be examined. remaining (23d did April, he live on of land said tract 1831) year and 1829, had done so since the 1826. interrogated year Being he stated: I had a register, perhaps vegetable garden, to the extent of acre, and of different raised vegetables kinds, corn for and I lived in comfortable roasting-cars; east- line on the before-mentioned dwelling, Quapaw asked, fraction. to reside, did continue and culti- Being you aforesaid, vate on the before-named fraction, your garden until did; the 29th 1830? he “I answers: have May, so continued to do until this time.” John on behalf of effect Saylor deposed Cloyes .same facts, but in terms. Nathan W. general Maynor Elliott swore that was true affidavit Bursey Saylor On the truth or falsehood of these the cause depositions depends.
In it affidavits, to these opposition proved, beyond dispute, af house, and his resided Cloyes Unit family apart TERM, DECEMBER Lgtle et al. v. State Arkansas et al. 1828, afterwards Doctor Liser. In tbe latter occupied
year removed from that cabins, some place part log situate on the lots afterwards Hutt, John occupied by where the of Arkansas resided in 1851, Governor when the witnesses Both were west of the places deposed. Quapaw one line—the cabins hundred west probably standing yards line was line,,and which the western boundary fractional section in resided at these quarter dispute. Cloyes Batesville, cabins when he swore at before the register; -continued to reside there death, till tbe time of his occurred after his return from Batesville, shortly say May June, 1831, his widow and children continued re- side at the same cabins for several after his death. years a tinner, trade and in December, 1826, by. *11 rented of William- Russell a small house, constructed of slabs set in wíiich he carried on his a business of upright, tin-plate worker. He covenanted and to retain for keep possession Russell of this all and not to leave the shop persons, house and to Russell two unoccupied, dollars month pay per rent, and surrender the house to Russell or his authorized at time the lessor. agent required by Under lease, the house Cloyes until the occupied this 19th. of June, when ho took a day lease from Chester Ashley for the same, also for a He covenanted garden. to pay rent; one dollar month to Ashley per put build- keep to and retain ing repair; keep possession same, until delivered back to said mutual Ashley by consent, either party a to terminate the lease on one having month’s notice. , Thé house and were rented the month. garden lease, Under this house, Cloyes occupied a tin-shop, to time of his death. 'Both the leases state that the shop was east of line, aud on the lands. Quapaw public
This slab tenement was built Moses Austin, about it On he sold to Rock, Little Doctor leaving Mathew Cun- several,bands, till it was ningham; passed through finally owned Col. cultivated Ashley. Buildings portions lands were the local public protected by laws- the Ai kansas either ejectment could have Territory; trespass COURT. SUPREME
Lytleet al. et al. State Arlcansus been maintained to recover Cloyes by Ashley against one, nor premises, could be raised by.any objection except States, United transfers of these possession—neither could be heard held to disavow his landlord’s title. He Cloyes for possession turned out on Ashley, subject month’s notice to quit. and other' witnesses
Cunningham depose shop rented to stood west line. It however Cloyes Quapaw from actual was on appears, that it the section survey, line, which ran the house, its southeast corner on through taking side, east but west of leaving part greater shop the line.
Another pertinent is, circumstance when heard Cloyes law of 1830 was pre-emption about had pass, passed, is uncertain which, from he (it removed his evidence,) children, wife and with some furniture, articles of necessary to the tinner’s from his shop, residence at the Hutt place, his at the few kept family months, then shop returned to their established home. This contrivance was resorted to at the probably instance of who Benjamin Desha, had with into the land agreed office the pay pur- chase and all incidental money, to obtain title expenses, from Government for an interest one-half the laud. These evasions were mere to defraud the law, and to attempts furnish some foundation for the affidavits to necessary support claim at the land office. case,
On aspect arises, whether *12 as lessee and tenant of Cloyes’s possession Ashley, occupying as the corner of shop mechanic, ob- accidentally truded over section line, upon land, and who' public to removal month, landlord each subject was “a on the settlement” lands, within public true intent and act 1830?' May, meaning never That Cloyes a home on contemplated seeking as lands a cultivator the soil, is manifest from the public he worked trade, at his when he proof; all,, worked at (say and followed no other avocation. Our witnesses,) opinion is, affidavits, that the on which the was1found occupant entry
DECEMBER TERM, Lytle et al. Stale Arkansas et al. fact,
ed, were untrue and a fraud on the receiver; and that had no bona fide as possession (cid:127) tenant of the tinner’s within the true act shop, meaning of 1830.
We áre also of that the are affidavits as opinion, disproved, fact cultivation in 1829. respects There was no garden cultivated or near to the To year, shop. say adjoining it is least, doubtful whether there was quite such cultiva- tion east of the line; and the State Quapaw courts, having n foundthat there was it is our to abide none, duty unless we could from the finding, ascertain, proof, they n were mistaken, which we do; cannot our impressions being to the contrary. cultivation in 1830, on May, depended evidence of witnesses.
parol them; below knew judges decided with all they them; localities before spot, and as the evidence is it would be contradictory, contrary for this court to overrule precedent of a mere fact finding the courts below. Oh the several we stated, order that grounds the decree of Court of Arkansas be the-Supreme affirmed, with costs.
Mr. Justice McLEAN and Mr. Justice CLIFFORD dis- sented.
Mr. Justice McLEAN: I dissent from as now opinion expressed,. and shall refer to the former to show the nature opinion, the case:
“After the refusal of the receiver to receive payment the land act claimed, 1832, 14th continu- passed, July, and which act of the 29th May, specially pro- ing land, been enabled to enter vided that those who had not claimed, of which within the time pre-emption right been limited, public surveys consequence having returned, lands, made and should have enter such in said on the same conditions every respect prescribed re- act, one after shall surveys year within made *13 COURT. SUPREME 208 et al. al. v. State Arkansas Lytle et of before Governor And this act was full force Pope turned. of the above lands. the surveys selected said That public the about made and fractional sections were perfected land returned office the be- December, 1833, and to the 1st of March, 4834, the 1834. On the 5th of of year ginning of into the land office sum f>135.76|, paid complainant full the above-named section.” for quarter “ same, on which the a certificate was for the That granted section endorsed, receiver fractional quarter that northwest two made se- was a of the location Governor Pope part Rock, acres, town of Little 1,000 lecting adjoining granted to raise fund court-house jail building Congress was made for the endorsement Territory; direction Land Office.” of the Commissioner General land “That of office would permit registei said to be entered.” fractional sections quarter “ said at It both of appeared patents, patentees lands, the time to enter had both con- application structive and actual notice of the and that the Cloyes, right of these had also notice of owners lands present any part complainants.” right In his Catron “The dissenting opinion, says: Judge 1831, cultivation made in under occupancy April, the act from the Commis- pursuant instruction sioner General Land Office reference to that act. having itself, act the instruction under its and the authority, taken proofs instruction, came according expired .to an end on the 29th time, 1831.-After that the matter May, stood if had existed; neither ever nor had more claim to Cloyes enter from 29,1831, to May 1832, than other July, villager in Little Rock.” true
Now, that,, be until act of although had the act of 1830 passed, expired, having right pre-emptive could not the law perfected, yet policy was, where vested had accrued, which, reason of rights delays in the completion of could not be carried surveys, out, the relief .Government, the law. And the in- gave by extending choate seedred It Government. policy
DECEMBER TERM, 1859.
Lytle et ah State Arkansas et al. *14 is therefore not accurate to the strictly say, party entering no has He pre-emption has a the right. right, by recognised Government, which he is enabled to his by perfect right; and, under such circumstances, no new could interfere entry one, with a prior imperfect. though
This court the of the of say, proof pre-emption Cloyes right the being entirely officers, land under act of- satisfactory 1830, there was no of addi- necessity receiving opening tional under the The of laws. act of subsequent (cid:127)1830 all under it were saved the expired, sub- having rights by acts. No sequent which had been taken were steps required to be taken. again
Did the location of under act of Governor the Con- Pope, affect June, the claim ? 1832, of On the 15th of gress, one thousand acres were the of land town adjoining granted, of Little Rock, to the of to Arkansas, be located Territory by the Governor. This made selection not until the 30th of 1833. was made January, Before of grant by Congress this tract, the of to a had not right CJoyes pre-emption accrued, under act but he had provisions his law, under to the satisfaction proved right, reg- done, ister and receiver of the land office. He had, fact, he could do to this fault or everything perfect No right. neg- can be him. to ligence charged to Arkansas, could not
.“By have-in grant Congress tended to vested of the thousand impair rights. grants the other acres tracts must be so construed as to not interfere with the pre-emption Cloyes.”
From the citations the- above made in opinion original ease, the aré this facts of law too clear following principles admit of doubt to one: by any
1. That to fractional section Cloyes’s quarter 2 established, No. land clearly officers and of this court. That, the location of Governor Pope, being subsequent not affect, circumstances, could linder Cloyes, right that if. This conveyance right, subject office, certifícate land uniform
appears XXII. VOL. SUPREME COURT. et al.
Jjytle v. State et al. Government, eases, action of the in all such and the faith good which has Government, characterized the action of in protect- time to such ing pre-emption protect rights, giving right, where the Government officers had failed in doing duty, And in addition considerations, to these in the solemn dec- laration of “that could have not intended Congress “ vested And impair rights.” say, grants the thousand acres and of the tracts con- other must so (cid:127) strued as interfere with the pre-emption Cloyes.” “ This court Court of the State, in sus- say, bill, demurrers decided taining dismissing claimed pre-emption right representatives Cloyes; and as we consider valid to the fractional quarter on which was made, the improvement the State *15 judgment court was reversed.”
“Now, the defendants bill, demurred to the original had do, to and rest the on they case the right demurrer’s on the face of the bill. But this court held appearing Cloyos’s valid, reversed, head, on this the right consequently judg- ment of the State court. And the cause is transmitted to the State court for further it, before or itas shall direct proceeding the on set in the defendants, defence answers of the that are tana the whole they or the purchasers parts fide of fractional of sectionin without notice, that controversy, that give to the on sides, leave amend both if that pleadings requested, the be merits shall ay fully presented proved, equity require.”
Now', it is clear that was under transmitted perfectly nothing to the court, of this court State latter except dsection “ of the sentence and the cause is transmitted part beginning, &c. And that court,” relates part wholly inquiry were the defendants bona fide whether purchasers of the fractional section in Aud whole parts controversy. leave amend purpose, given pleadings. there is in this bill which afforded any pretence anything Xf and examine to the State court open any pleadings, .it close, in the those its has bill, matters specified exoopt notice. escaped my TERM,
DECEMBER at. v. et Lytle el State at. Arkansas “ bill, were It is said in the and receiver consti- act, tribunal to determine of those tuted, by it. claimed under From their decision no who pre-emptions therefore, acted within their If, appeal given. pow- ers, commissioner, law, as sanctioned and within the decision cannot fraud impeached ground unfairness; must be considered final.” here The court of its own speaking powers jurisdic- not other tion tribu- powers investigation, It was mal. no court would supposed superior willingly subverted, made, its to be new judicial powers permit parties introduced, and the reversed, new whole subjects proceedings an at will of inferior without exercise of jurisdiction, power. controlling record
This State of Arkansas have seems to been a prolific as its source have to about proportions controversy, grown a thousand briefs and statements of facts. pages, including must It some skill in to draw into certainly require legislation, State court so amount of business under the laws large And it become a concern, matter Congress. public such a mass of action is not judicial when thrown into the State but new rules and of action principles are. to be sanctioned, liable the laws of the disregard United States.
Without it does any authority, that the appear has been reversed Court its *16 'coui’t, modified in of proceedings its own disregard judg- and ments and opinions new clearly rules of expressed, pro- instituted out; and carried and this ceedings under an au- to the Arkansas court thority to ascertain given whether cer- tain had made purchases been bona fide. in his his lifetime, own and
Cloyes, affidavit, the affidavits others, made of his on, settlement proof improvement the of, above fractional to the quarter, according provisions the act, satisfaction of the and receiver of register said land district, the rules agreeably prescribed the Commissioner of the Land Office; General on the 20th May, 1881, Hartwell Boswell, Redman, and John register, COURT. SUPREME
Lytle al. et-al. State Arkansas et receiver, decided entitled to pre- said was that/the “ emption claimed. On the same he applied day, section to enter the register northwest fractional quarter two, hundredths acres and containing thirty eighty-eight an acre.” that Cloyes But the decided very properly register could be on which enter fraction permitted n improvement made. Office, Commissioner Land General satisfied with receiver, declare were they made in the of Arkansas case; but the Court Supreme decided claimed repre- pre-emption right sentatives of of the United Court Cloyes; Supreme States “as we' fractional that a as to the say, consider valid right on which quarter made, the improvement judgment/ of the State court is reversed.”
How does this case now It reversed upon stand? stands our own records Court Arkansas, no other A bench power. of this majority judg- entered.the as ment, it now in 1849. stands, But, the reforming through of a record of notes' process, thousand not pages, including and statements of it has facts, become formidable enough pile, to fill with the first claimant'of the despair right.
It is true; cause was sent for a down special purpose, word of which I now every copy: “ And the cause is to that transmitted court (the Supreme further as before,it, Court Arkansas) proceedings on the direct, shall defence set de- the answers of the inup fendants, that are bona fide of the whole they purchasers of the fractional sections in notice, without parts controversy, and that that court leave to amend the both- give pleadings sides, if that the merits the case requested, pre- fully sented and shall proved, equity require.”
Several of the defendants were bona fide pur- alleged they notice; chasers of a or the whole of fraction, without part down case object to enable sending persons to show were of this character. This did purchasers involve fraud. And this the whole sub- necessarily embraces ject inquiry.
DECEMBER TERM, 1859. Lytle et al. v. State Arkansas al. et It would have been inconsistent for this court to we sáy, consider the claim representatives as a valid as to the fractional right, on which quarter was improvement made, on that to reverse the ground of the State court, and at the judgment same time send the down, case to the open fraud conceivable charge every was enormity. to object who know were purchasers without notice. That this was the intention of the Supreme Court, is from the palpable of the language entry. majority Court had full confidence in claim, and validity Cloyes’s reversed consequently of the State court; leaving open,
whether the defendants were without purchasers notice. It this may would e!ntry have all protected the purchasers. Erom the nature of it is a pre-emption rights, presumed, desirous of a such person is the first And right applicant. of such a proof if sustained right, receiver-and the Commissioner of the Land Office, is deemed required, It is where satisfactory. a fortunate made, selection. to be a appears prospect city, local some that a great advantage anticipated, contest arises as to such claim.
The officers the land whose department, it peculiar duty to seemed to have protect public rights, discharged satisfaction Government. This was duty to a also entirely satisfactory majority judges with the from that, answers, it single exception, there have been of this purchasers probable And without notice. from the evidence introduced, to have been would seem considered that one who at any desiréd to time considered himself as purchase, having right he no to had means to make the complain, although purchase, desire make it. had no If evidence not, I mistake was heard from from witnesses after the twenty-five years twenty pre-emption right the Government. Such a sanctioned course tends greatly land titles embarrass under the land law. Every general one kr that a ows man who endeavors 'obtain pre-emption, COURT. SUPREME et al.
Bondies Sherwood *18 means, and a maii of be limited nature of mast, in the things, law; and it suit at an expensive maintaining inaapable those to limit true me the has policy appeared always At all of the Government. land department questions tribunals, to the Federal should be limited events, that tliey will have it the land where, department presumed, uniform administration.
As I think stands, this case now the judgment : on two Court be reversed must Supreme grounds ' of this en- it has reversed the Because judgment term, tered a members at by majority December “ in sustain- State, in these Court of the words: decided bill, demurrers and ing dismissing and as claimed Cloyes; representatives fractional we that a as to consider valid quarter right, .the of the State made, improvement judgment court is reversed.” as it now stands
This is the of this court upon judgment docket. And our reversed, court must be be-
2. The State it the directions of this in cause wholly disregarded issues transmitted it. trying George part late Master Bondies, Owner the Steam James P. Sher &c., Kate, intervening,
boat Appellant, Joseph Barney wood, McClelland, Libel McGinnis, lants. raising was a coniract for a sunken
Where there vessel certain stipulation, it, who raised the vessel cannot salvage and claim a co”'-t party abandon of admiralty. whether, in This court does not now decide suits for the suit salvage, may be and in is still an personam jointly. open rem one. law salvage applies does decide whether: maritime Nor the. vessel State, internal proceeding same, trade of from engaged port a river within the same. wholly