this Court, on the allegation that the Court of the State has misconstrued an act of Congress. The plaintiff has stated several equitable circumstances in aid of the title given by his entry; but unless his entry be in itself valid, there can have been no misconstruction of an act of Congress in dismissing the bill, and this Court cannot take into consideration any distinct equity arising out of the contracts and transactions of the parties, and creating a new and independent title. The validity of the plaintiff's entry depends on the land laws of the United States. In May, 1800, Congress passed an act dividing an extensive territory northwest of the river Ohio, into four districts; and establishing a land office in each, for the sale of the public lands within that district. This act prescribes the time, place, and manner, in which the lands of each district shall be offered at public sale; and directs, also, the manner and terms in which those not sold at public sale may be disposed of at private sale. The lands of the district comprehending the tract in controversy were to be offered for public sale at Marietta, on the last Monday of May, 1801. On the 3d of March, 1803, Congress passed an act, the 6th section of which creates a fifth district, and enacts that the lands contained within it "shall be offered for sale at Zanesville under the direction of a Register of the land office and Receiver of public moneys, to be appointed for that purpose, who shall reside at that place." This district includes the land in controversy. 1822. Matthews v. Zane. 1822. Matthews V. Zane. On the 26th of March, 1804, Congress passed an act entitled," an act making provision for the disposal of the public lands in the Indiana territory, and for other purposes." This act comprehends the lands directed to be sold under the act of 1800, and 1803, as well as the lands in Indiana. The 5th section enacts, that " all the lands aforesaid," (except certain enumerated tracts, of which the land in controversy forms no part,) " be offered for sale to the highest bidder, under the direction of the Surveyor General, or Governor of the Indiana Territory, of the Register of the land office, and of the Receiver of public moneys at the places respectively where the land offices are kept, and on such day or days as shall, by a public proclamation of the President of the United States, be designated for that purpose." On the 7th of February, 1804, Matthews applied to the Register of the Marietta District, and communicated to him his desire to purchase the land in controversy. The office of Receiver being then vacant, no money was paid, and no entry was made; but the Register took a note or memorandum of the application. The counsel for the plaintiff insists, that the title of his client commences with this application. The law authorizes the respective Registers to sell at private sale all the lands which may remain unsold at the public sales, and says the sales "shall be made in the following manner, and under the following conditions, to wit: 1. "At the time of purchase, every purchaser shall, exclusively of the fees hereafter mentioned, pay six dollars for every section, and three dollars for every half section he may have purchased, for surveying expenses; and deposit one-twentieth part of the amount of purchase money, to be forfeited if within forty days one fourth part of the purchase money, including the said twentieth part, is not paid." The payment of the money required by the act is obviously indispensable to the purchase. Without such payment, the sale prescribed by law could not be made; and certainly no sale, had the Register attempted to make one, could be valid if made in opposition to the law. But the Register has not attempted to sell, nor could Mr. Matthews have so understood the transaction. He took a note of the land the plaintiff intended to purchase; and, had the receipt of the Receiver been produced, might, perhaps, have made the entry. In so doing he would have acted in the double character of Register, and agent of the purchaser. That there was no Receiver was undoubtedly not the fault of Mr. Matthews; but this circumstance as completely suspended the power of selling land in the Marietta District as if there had been neither Register nor Receiver; as if there had been no land office. The transactions then between Mr. Matthews and the Register on the 9th of February, 1804, may be put entirely out of the case. On the 12th day of May, 1804, soon after the Re 1822. Matthews V. Zane. 1822. Matthews V. Zane. This Court confined to the con title set up un ceiver had entered on the duties of his office, Matthews paid the sum of money required by law, and made an entry for the land in controversy with the Register of the Marietta District. The 12th section of the act of the 26th of March, 1804, directed that "the lands in the District of Zanesville should be offered for public sale on the third Monday of May." In pursuance of this act, and of instructions from the Secretary of the Treasury, the sale of the lands in the District did commence on that day; and, on the 26th day of that month, the defendants became the purchasers of the land in controversy. There are many charges of fraud in the bill, and sideration of the a contract between the parties is alleged. But this der the act of Court cannot look into those circumstances, unless Congress. they had induced the Court of Ohio to determine against the person having the title under the laws of the United States. As this case stands, the opinion of the State Court on the fraud and the contract, is conclusive; and the only question to be discussed here is, the title of the plaintiff under the acts of Congress. This depends entirely on the validity of his entry made on the 12th of May, 1804. a The constitution of the United States declares, (art. 3. s. 2.) that "the judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this constitution, the Laws of the United States, and treaties made, on which shall be made, under their authority; to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;" &c. And that, "In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls, and those in which a State shall be a party, the Supreme Court shall have This question has already been decided in this Court. original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions and under such regulations as the Congress shall make." The judiciary act of 1789, c. 20. s. 25. provides, "that a final judgment, or decree, in any suit, in the highest Court of Law or Equity of a State, in which a decision of the suit could be had, where is drawn in question the validity of a treaty or statute of, or an authority exercised under, the United States, and the decision is against their validity," &c.; "or where is drawn in question the construction of any clause of the constitution, or of a treaty, or statute of, or commission held under, the United States, and the decision is against the title, right, priviLege, or exception, specially set up by either party, under such clause of the said constitution, treaty, statute, or commission, may be re-examined and reversed or affirmed in the Supreme Court of the United States, upon a writ of error," " &c. "But no other error shall be assigned or regarded as a ground of reversal, in any such case as aforesaid, than such as appears on the face of the record, and immediately respects the beforementioned questions of validity or construction of the said constitution, treaties, statutes, commissions, or authorities, in dispute." Under these provisions, with a view to the questions of jurisdiction in the above case, (Matthews v. Zane and others,) the following points have been determined by this Court. In an action of ejectment between two citizens of the same State, in the State Court, for lands within the State, if the defendant sets up an outstanding title in a British subject, which he contends is protected by the 9th art. of the treaty of 1794, between the United States and Great Britain, and that therefore, the title is out of the plaintiff; and the highest Court of Law or Equity of the State decides against the title thus set up, it is not a case in which a writ of error lies to this Court. The words of the judiciary act must be restrained by the constitu 1822. Matthews V. Zane. |