Glenn v. United States (Hempst. 394)/Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT.—In this case, I do not deem it necessary to give reasons at length for the decree I shall render, because the decision must depend mainly on principles already decided in the Winter cases, and in the De Villemont case. It is true that this is in some respects different; but that difference is rather formal than substantial.
I deem the claim invalid upon two grounds: first, that the conditions of the grant were not complied with; and I will merely remark that I cannot subscribe to the argument that it was a grant without conditions; second, that there was no authoritative survey of the grant, which was undoubtedly required by the Spanish regulations. For my reasons on this point, I refer to the opinion in the case of the Heirs of Elisha Winter. Nor do I deem the calls of the grant sufficiently certain to separate any land from the royal domain without a survey.
On these two grounds, the claim must be rejected.
From this decree the petitioners appealed to the supreme court; and at the December term, 1851, the case was argued there by Mr. Webster and Mr. Johnson for the appellants, and Mr. Crittenden, attorney-general, for the United States. It is reported in 13 Howard's S.C. Rep. 250.
- ↑ Ante, p. 344.
- ↑ The supreme court, it will be seen, overruled this point, holding that the grant was sufficiently described to fix its locality.