Page:Hempstead's Reports.pdf/413

---

Winter et al. v. United States.

---

or annul, or in any manner affect such conditions. Code Napoleon, b. 3, c. 4, sect. 1. But what perhaps is more to the purpose, the supreme court has held that conditions could not be dispensed with, but must be performed. The United States v. Kingsley, 12 Pet. 486.

There are other points that might be noticed, but it is not necessary; and in closing this opinion, I will adopt the language of the supreme court in Lawton's case (5 Howard, 28), as applicable on the present occasion.

This concession, in its leading features, cannot be distinguished from various others, where no specific land was granted, or intended to be granted; but it was left to the grantee to have a survey made of the land in the district referred to by the concession by some person properly authorized, by which additional act the land granted would have been severed from the king's domain, and have become private property.

Let the claim be rejected, and the petition be dismissed, at the costs of the petitioners.

Ordered accordingly.

 

---

 

NOTE.—The cases of The Heirs of William Winter, deceased, v. The United States, and Gabriel Winter v. The United States, for 250,000 arpens each, depending upon the same facts and principles, were severally argued by Daniel Ringo, for the petitioners, and S. H. Hempstead, district attorney, for the United States, in conjunction with the preceding case; and, under the foregoing opinion, the claims were severally rejected, and the petitions dismissed. In each of the three cases appeals to the supreme court were prayed and granted, but never prosecuted any further, and were abandoned. The case of A. W. Putnam and others v. The United States, claiming under Elisha Winter by conveyances, was dismissed.