of vacancy in the office of the Commissioner of the General Land Office, or of the absence or sickness of the Commissioner, the duties of said office shall devolve upon and be performed, ad interim, by the Principal Clerk of the public lands.
Sec. 3. And be it further enacted, That there shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, anIn making an entry of land, where mistakes occur which are occasioned by the impracticability of ascertaining the relative positions of the objects called for, the court will correct those mistakes, so as to carry out the intentions of the locator. Croghan’s lessee v. Nelson, 3 Howard, 187.
There is no principle of the common law which forbids individuals from associating together to purchase lands from the United States, on joint account, at public sale. Olner v. Pratt, 3 Howard, 333.Where the purchaser of land from the United States has paid for it, and received a final certificate, it is taxable property, according to the statute of Michigan, although a patent has not been issued. Carroll v. Safford, 3 Howard, 441.Taxation upon lands so held is not a violation of the ordinance of 1787, as “an interference with the primary disposition of the soil by Congress;” nor is it a tax on the lands of the United States. The State of Michigan could rightfully impose the tax. Ibid.It was competent to the State to asses and tax lands at their full value, as the absolute property of the holder of the final certificate; and, in default of payment, to sell them as if he owned them in fee. Ibid.The act of 26th May 1830, chap. 106, providing for the final settlement of land claims in Florida, must be construed to contain the same limitation of time, within which claims are to be presented, as that provided by the act of May 23, 1828, chap. 70. The United States v. Marvin, 3 Howard, 620.Under the act of congress providing for the subdivision of the public lands, and the instructions of the Secretary of the Treasury, made under the act of 24th April 1820, chap. 49, entitled, An act making further provision for the sale of the public lands, it is the duty of the Surveyor General to leave out a fractional section in such a manner as that an entire quarter section may be had, if the fraction will admit of it. Brown’s Lessee v. Clements, 3 Howard, 650.The Surveyor General has no right to divide a fractional section by arbitrary lines, so as to prevent an entire quarter section from being taken up. Ibid.The treaty by which Louisiana was ceded to the United States, recognised complete grants, issued anterior to the cession; and the decision of a State court against the validity of a grant set up under such a title, would be subject to reversal by the Supreme Court, under the 25th section of the Judiciary Act. M’Donogh v. Millaudon, 3 Howard, 693.But if the State court only applies the laws of the State to the construction of the grant, it is not a decision against the validity of the grant, and the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction. Ibid.Congress, in asking a complete grant, recognised them as they stood; and the act of May 11, 1820, chap. 87, confirming such as were recommended for confirmation by the register and receiver, had no reference to any particular surveys. A decision of a State court, therefore, which may be in opposition to one of these surveys, is not against the validity of a title existing under an act of Congress; and the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction. Ibid.By the treaty of 1795 between the United States and Spain, by which Spain admitted that she had no title to land north of the 31st degree of north latitude, her previous grants of land so situated were of course void. The country thus belonging to Georgia was ceded to the United States in 1802, with a reservation that all persons who were actual settlers on the 27th October 1795, should have their grants confirmed. Congress provided a board of commissioners to examine these grants, and declared that their decision should be final. The Court of Chancery of Mississippi had no right to establish one of these grants which had not been brought within the provisions of the act of Congress. The claim itself being utterly void, and no power having been conferred by Congress on that court to take or exercise jurisdiction over it, for the purpose of imparting to it legality, the exercise of jurisdiction was a mere usurpation of judicial power, and the whole proceeding of the court void. Lessor of Hickey, v. Stewart, 3 Howard, 750.The Supreme Court has repeatedly declared, and in cases too where the instrument contained clear words of grant, that if the description was vague and indefinite, and there was no official survey to give a certain location, it could give no right of private property in any particular parcel of land, which could be maintained in a court of justice. United States v. King et al. 3 Howard, 773.An equitable title is no defence in a suit at law brought by the United States. An imperfect title, derived from Spain before the cession, cannot be supported against a party claiming under a grant from the United States. Ibid.The act of Congress of 29th April 1816, chap. 159, confirming the grant to a league square, restricted it to that quantity, and cannot be construed as confirming the residue. Ibid.The act of Congress, entitled “An act to create additional land districts in the States of Illinois and Missouri, and the territories north of the State of Illinois,” approved June 26, 1834, chap. 76, does not require the President of the United States to cause to be offered for sale the public lands containing lead-mines, situated in the land districts created by the said act. United States v. Gear, 3 Howard, 120.The lands containing lead-mines in the Indiana territory, or in that part of it made into a new land district by the act of 26th June, 1834, chap. 76, are not subject, under any of the pre-emption laws which have been passed by Congress, to pre-emption by settlers upon the public lands. Ibid.Digging lead-ore from the lead-mines upon the public lands of the United States, is such a waste as entitles the United States to a writ of injunction to restrain it. Ibid.The United States now hold the public lands in the new States by force of the deeds of cession, and the statutes connected with them, and not by any municipal sovereignty which it may be supposed they possess or have received, by compact with the new States for that purpose. Pollard’s Lessee v. Hagan, 3 Howard, 212.The shores of navigable rivers, and the soil under them, were not granted to the United States, but were reserved to the States respectively; and the new States have the same rights, sovereignty and jurisdiction over this subject, as the original States. Ibid.
