« AnteriorContinuar »
Saint Vincent's Female Orphan CHAP. 265. An Act for the relief of Asylum of the city of Washington, William Nelson, administrator of the under the direction of the Sisters estate of Andrew Nelson, deceased, of charity, and of the Washington
and for other purposes. City Orphan Asylum, and for other purposes.
CHAP. 266. An Act for the relief of
Pierre Leglize. CHAP. 250. An Act to release from
duty, iron prepared for, and actually CHAP. 267. An Act for the relief of laid on, railways or inclined planes. Rebecca Blodget, widow of Samu.
el Blodget deceased. CHAP. 251. An Act supplemental to
the act' granting certain relinquish- CHAP. 268. An Act for the relief of ed and unappropriated lands to the Guy W. Smith. State of Alabama, for the purpose of improving the navigation of the CHAP 269. An Act for the relief of Tennessee, Coosa, Cahaba, and the heirs of Thomas Davenport. Black Warrior rivers,' approved the twentythird day of May, one thou- CHAP. 270. An Act for the relief of sand eight hundred and twenty Thomas Holdup Stevens, and oth eight.
CHAP. 252. An Act for the relief of CHAP. 271. An Act for the relief of
Bernard Leonard and Jacob Black. Samuel May.
CHAP. 253. An Act for the relief of CHAP. 272. An Act for the relief of Licutenant James L. Dawson.
CHAP. 254. An Act for the relief of CHAP. 273. An Act for the relief of David Kilbourn.
William D. Gaines and William
CHAP. 274. An Act for the relief of
John F. Girod, of Louisiana.
CHAP. 275. An Act for the relief of
William Wayne Wells, of the State CHAP. 257. An Act for the relief of of Indiana. Don Carlos Dehault Delassus.
CHAP. 276. An Act for the relief of CHAP. 258. An Act for the relief of the heirs and legal representatives Heman Allen.
of Edward Barry, deceased. CHAP. 259. An Act for the relief ol CHAP. 277. An Act for the relief of Christopher Brooks.
CHAP. 260. An Act for the relief of CHAP. 278. An Act for the relief of
the personal representatives of Col- the heirs of Jeremiah Buckley, deonel John Laurens.
CHAP. 261. An Act for the relief of CHAP. 279. An Act for the relief of Gates Hoit.
CHAP. 262. An Act for the relief of CHAP. 280. An Act for the relief of
David E. Twiggs, Joseph M. Street William A. Tennille.
CHAP. 281. An Act granting to MidCHAP. 263. An Act for the relief of dleton McKay, a section of land in
certain invalid and other pensioners, lieu of the reservation given him therein named.
by the treaty of Dancing Rabbit
CHAP. 282. An Act for the relief of
the sureties of George Brown, de- CHAP. 300. An Act for the relief of
CHAP. 301. An Act for the relief of
Robert C. Jennings, and of the ex- Farrow and of Richard Harris. ecutors of James Roddy, deceased.
CHAP. 302. An Act for the relief of CHAP. 284. An Act for the relief of the heirs of Nathaniel Hillen. John and Benjamin Welles.
CHAP. 303. An Act for the relief of
Randall Allis, Timothy Twichell, Patridge, and John G. Snith.
Approved, July 14, 1832.
CHAP 286. An Act for the relief of
No. 1. Resolution, empowering the
entitled, “An act for the relief of certain contracts, and to relinquish
Resolved by the Senate and House
of Representatives of the United CIIAP. 288. Ao Act for the relief of
štates of America in Congress asBartholomew Shaumburgh.
sembled, That the Secretary of the
Navy be empowered to relinquish and CHAP. 289. An Act for the relief of
pay all forfeitures on contracts made by Hartwell Vick of the State of Mis
the Board of Navy Commissioners, when sissippi.
said forfeitures have arisen by the ex
tension of the contracts, or where the CHAP. 290. An Act for the relief of
contracts have been completed by the certain Invalid Pensioners.
approbation of the, Board of Navy com
missioners, without any injury to the CHAP. 291. An Act for the relief of public service; and the Secretary of the Grieve Drummond.
Navy is empowered 10 fulfil all outstand.
ing contracts where the time for their CHAP. 292. An Actfor the relief of performance has been extended, or John Peck.
where the completion of said contracts
has been prevented by unavoidable acCHAP. 293. An Act for the relief of cident, and the public service has susElizabeth Scott, only surviving
tained no injury.
Approved, February 10, 1832.
No. 2. Resolution concerning the re
cording of Patents for useful inven. CH AP. 294. An Act for the relief of
tions. Sarah Easton and Dorothy Storer,
Resolved by the Senate and House of CHAP. 295. An Act for the relief of Representatives of the United States of Augustine Taney.
America in Congress assembled, That
the Secretary of State, out of the proCHAP. 296. An Act for the relief of ceeds arising from the fees, on patents Henry Waller.
for useful inventions, discoveries and
improvements, procure the necessary CHAP. 297. An Act for the relief of books, stationary, and other accommoHarvey Brown.
dations for recording the patents issued
and unrecorded, as well as those hereCHAP. 298. An Act for the relief of after to be issued, and that he employ,
Alexander Oswald Brodie of New and pay at a rate not exceeding twelve
and a balf cents for every hundred
words, so many clerks as may be reCHAP. 299. An Act for the relief of quisite, with convenient despatch, to reWilliam Hoffman, a Canadian vol.
cord the same. unteer.
Approved, March 7, 1832.
No. 3. Resolution respecting the pay of No. 8. Resolution to repeal a resolution, the Marines.
approved the tweniyointh day of Resolved by the Senate and House of
April, one thousand eight hundred Representatives of the United States of
and sixteen, authorizing the Presi.
dent of the United States to em. America in Congress assembled, That the pay, subsistence, emoluments, and
ploy a skilful assistant in the corps allowances of officers, non-commission
of engineers. ed officers, musicians and privates of the No. 9. Resolution in relation to the ex. United States Marine Corps, shall be the ecution of an act supplementary to same as they were previously to the first the act for the relief of certain surof April, one thousand eight hundred
viving officers and soldiers of the and twentynine, and shall so continue,
revolution. until they shall be altered by law. Approved, May 25, 1832.
Resolved by the Senate and House of
Representatives of the United States of No. 4. Resolution transferring certain
America in Congress assembled, That, duties, relating to Pensions, from in the execution of the act supplementathe Treasury to the War Depart.
ry to the act for the relief of certain ment.
surviving officers and soldiers of the No. 5. Resolution for the distribution
revolution, approved June seveath, one of the returns of the Fifth Census.
thousand eight hundred and thirty-two,
the time of imprisonment as a prisoner No. 6. Resolution directing the distribu- of war, shall be taken and computed as
tion of a compilation of congression- a part of the period of service.
No. 10. Resolution directing the transNo. 7. Resolution for binding the sev- mission of the Fifth Census by eral copies of the returns of the
mail. fifth census, printed by authority of the act of the twentyihird of May, No. 11. Resolution respecting the Bien. one thousand eight hundred and
nial Register. thirty.
TRIALS AND LEGAL
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES.
JANUARY TERM, 1832.
Asa Greene, Plaintiff in Error, vs. The Lessee of Henry Neal,
Defendant in Error.
ERROR to the Circuit Court of the Uni- present state of decision in the Supreme ted States for the district of West Ten- Court of the United States they could nessee.
not charge that defendant's title was Mr Grundy for the Plaintiff in error ; made good by the statute of limitations.' Mr Isaacks for the defendant.
The decision of the point raised by the The facts of the case are fully stated bill of exceptions in this case, is one of in the opinion of the court delivered by great importance, both as it respects the Mr Justice Mc'Lean.
amount of property which may be effect. The writ of error is prosecuted to re- ed by it and ihe principle which it inverse a judgment of the Circuit Court volves. In the case of Patton's Lessee, for West Tenne:see. An action of vs. Easton, which was brought to this ejectment was prosecuted by Neal in that court by writ of Error in 1816, the same Court, to recover the possession of six question which was raised by the bill of hundred and forty acres of land. The exceptions was then decided. But it is issue was joined and at the trial, the de- contended, that under the peculiar cirfendant relied upon the statute of limi. cumstances of the case now before the tations and and prayed certain instruc- court, they ought not to feel themselves tions of the court to the jury. Instruc- bound by their former decision. This tions were given, as stated in the fol. court in the case of Powell's Lessee v. lowing bill of exceptions. In the trial Green, 2 Peters, 240, gave another dethe plaintiff introduced in evidence a cision, under the authority of the one grant from the State of North Carolina just named, but the question was not dated
argued before the court. to Willoghby Williams, The question involves in the first for the land in controvert, and deduced place, the construction of the statutes of a regular chain of conveyances to plain- limitations passed in 1715 and in 1797. tiffs lessor, and proved defendant in The former was adopted by the State of possession of the land in question at the Tennessee, from North Carolina: the time suit was brought; defendant in- third section of which provides, that troduced a deed from Andrew Jackson
no person or persons, or their heirs to Edward Dillon, and proved that the which hereafter shall have any right or defendant held by a lease from Dillon, title to any lands, tenements, or hereditaand also in support of Dillons, introdu- ments, shall thereunto enter or make ced evidence tending to prove that per- claim, but within seven years after his, sons claiming under and for Dillon, had her, or their right or title shall descend been more than seven years in posses- or accrue, and in default, thereof, such sion of the premises in dispute, adverse to person or persons, so not entering or the plaintiffs ; upon which the court making default shall be utterly exclucharged the jury, that according to the ded and disabled from any entry or claim thereafter to be made.' The fourth In the case of Lillard vs. Elliot, it section provides, after ennmerating cer. seems but two judges concerned on the tain disabilities, and the time within point, the court being composed of four; which suit must be brought, after they and in the case of Weathehead vs. shall cease, that all possessions held Douglas, that was great contrariety of without suing such claim as aforesaid, opinion among the judges, on the point shall be a perpetual bar against all and of either legal or equitable connexion. all manner of persons whatever, that the The question was frequently raised be. expectation of heire may not, in a short fore the Supreme Court of Tennessee : time, leave much land uppossessed, and but the construction of the two statutes titles so perplexed that no man will know of Jimitations was never considered as from whoin to take or buy land.' finally settled until 1825, when the case
In the year 1797, the legislature, in of Gray and Reeder vs. Darby's Lessee order to settle the true construction of was decided. the existing laws respecting seven years' in this cause, an elaborate review of possession, enact that in all cases where- the cases which had arisen under the ever any person or persons shall have statute, is taken, and the construction of had seven years' placeable possession of both statutes was given, that it is not any land, by virtue of a grant or deed necessary, to entitle an individual to the of conveyance founded upon a grant, benefits of the statutes, that he should and no legal claim by suit in law, by show a connected title, either legal or such, set up to said land, within the equitable. That is he prove an adverse above term, that then and in that case, possession of seven years and a deed, the person or persons so holding posses- before suit is brought, and show that the sion as aforesaid, shall be entitled to land has been granted, he brings him. hold possession in preference to all oth- self within the statutes. er claimants such quantity of land as Since this decision the law has been shall be specified in his, her or their said considered as settled in Tennessee, and grant or deed of conveyance founded on there has been so general an acquies. a grant as aforesaid. This act further cence in all the courts of the state, that provides, that those who neglect, for the the point is not now raised or discussed. term of seven years, to assert their This construction has become a rule of claims, shall be barred.
property in the State, and numerous This Court, in the conclusion of their suits involving title have been settled by opinion in the case of Pation's Lessee it. Had this been the settled construcv. Easton, say * this question too has at tion of these statutes when the decis. length, been decided in the Supreme ion was inade by this court, in the case Court of the State. Subsequent to the of Pations' Lessee vs. Easton, there can division of opinion on this question in be no doubt, that that opinion would the Circuit Court, two cases have been have conforined to it. But the question decided in the Supreme Court for the is now raised, whether the court will State of Tennessee, which have settled adhere to its own decision, ipade under the construction of ihe act of 1797. It the circumstances stated, or yield to the has been decided, that a possession of judicial tribunals of Tennessee. This seven years is a bar only when held un- point has never before been directly deder a grant, or a deed founded on a cided by this couri, on a question of gengrant.' The deed must be connected eral importance. The with the grant. This court concurs in merous where the court have adopted that opinion. A deed cannot be • found- the constructions given to the statute of ed on a grant which gives a title not de- a state by its supreme judicial tribunal: rived in law or equity from that grant, but it has never been decided, that this and the words, founded on a grant, are Court will overrule their own adjudica. too important to be discarded.
tion, establishing an important rule of The two decided cases to which refer- property, where it has been founded on ence is made above, are Lillard vs. Elli. the construction of a statute made in ot, and Douglass v. Bledsoe's Heirs. conformity to the decisions of the state These cases were decided in the year at the time, so as to conform to a differ. 1815; and this court considered, that ent construction adopted afterwards by they settled the construction of the Stat- the state. ute of 1797. But it is now made to ap- This is a question of grave import and pear that these decisions were made un. should be approached with great delibder such circumstances, that they were eration. It is deeply interesting in evenever considered, in the State of Ten- ry point of view in wbich it may be nessee, as fully settling the construction considered. As a rule of property it is of the act.
important : and equally so as it regards
cases are nu