Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 5.djvu/146

In making an entry of land, where mistakes occur which are occasioned by the impractieability 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. Crogharfs lessee v. Nelson, 3 Howard, 187. 'I ere is no principle of the common law which forbids individuals from associating togethertopurclmso 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 tgxugbtel pgopgty, aolcording to the statute of Michigan, although a patent has not been issued. Cm-[gn v. 0 owar , 44 . _Taxatidn upon lands so held is not a violation of the ordinance of 1787 as “ an interference with the primary! disposition of the soil by Con ress ;" nor is it a tax on the lands of the United States. The Sm., of Mic igan could rightfully impose the tax. 16121. It was competent to the State to assess and tax lands at their full value, as the absolute property of the holder of the linal certificate; and, in default of payment, to sell them as if he owned them in tee. IM. 'I he act of 26th May 1830, chap. 106, providing lor 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 690. I Under the act of Congress providing for the subdivision of the public lands, and the indtructions of the Secretary of the Treasury, made under the act of 24th April 1820, chap. 49, entitled, An act making ¥urther pfovision for thehsa e of the pulgic lands, it is the duty of the Surveyor General to leave out a rac iona section in suc a mann r ast z ti a th h ‘ ' 0 gwwds Igsscc 1;.hCIBnwenS};3 Iisfgatgen égcou r er section may e ad, if the fraction will admit _ e urveyor enera as no r' t to'd tio al f b b li as im entire quarter section from being t5ren uplv1Ii;id. mc H scc mn y M may ms, so wpmvcm The treaty by which Louisiana was ceded to the United States, reco nised complete grants issued anterior tg tdeboessign ; and the defzilsionhofsa State cram against the validity of a grant set up under such , w n e su act to revers t' ‘ Mgcmfégg ulémuauiion, 3 Howaadi gg3e upreme ourt, under the 25th section of the Judiciary Act. .1ltl the_ tate court only applies the laws of the State t th st f of th' decision against the validity of the grant, and the Supreme Codrt liagcrio iillsiddidtion. GI?;;?", It B not 8 Congress, in asking a complete grant, recognised them as they stood; and the not of May 11, 1820, chap. 87, confirming such as were recommended for confirmation by the register and receiver, had no {sferencie 5;: any particular surveys. A decision of a State court, therefore, which may be in opposition gultéggrrloe Ciesetsgrgeiyi stgzggaiusg validity of a title existing under an act of Congress; and the _ ytetr t f1'“95b ·tnea'‘ B mt r., t,;:;;: an ;:;:¤s:;:;:‘z:*1.:z€r2* rams.22:1;,:2Jxrgéstssfiérrsé at 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 hehe their irants confirmed. Con ess provided a board of commissioners to examine these émnts and declared t at their decision shoulzlqbe final. The Court of Chancery of Mississiphad nohtt le tabl lt of thesegrants which had not been brought within the provisions of thelact of Crdhgregs. S Thi? clgiiii itself being utterly void, and no power having been conferred b Congress on that court to take ot 3i5s2m: _\ur1sd1ction_ over it, for the purpose of imparting to it legadly, the exercise of jurisdiction was a St?Pv;ar5'·};l}§t;;¤;t1r<(;,_i7\gtl;c1al power,_an the whole proceeding of the court void. Lesser o£Hickey,¤- e Supreme Court hos repeatedly declared and in cases too h th’ d l Words of Frant, that if the description was vague, and indefinite, arid tlnfre vsadndhrhdtiiildlcgddilgctocgidd 8C6ft8m ocation, it could we no right of private property in an articular l f l d hi h ld be maintained in a court oF justice. The United States v K ytpl 3 H mcs 0 an ’ W c wu An e uitable title is no defence in a suit at law brou lit all "t dog , 773.perfec ' gsglggiéggtiggn lielge the cession, cannot be suppofitted dgairgt alhafirty clzidldnghiiddiua granl iiliiii Thenct0fC l s l29hA‘ · · to Wt q¤mz‘Z‘L"?Si,3mt 3,.,‘,§§SJE§S;i*‘Z£;é?&r£°7i.2“t£id£? g'??%.’° “ ‘°“g“° ““"‘“· ’°““°‘°‘* " Mismontfictatafj tznetéegbsirétitled "An act to create additional land districts in the States of Illinois and _ t 9 s north of the State of Illinois," approved June 26 1834 cha 76 d s not {;1(;¤l'6_tll¤ President of the United_States to cause to be offered for sale the pulilic ltiiids ibolilealhihg Ti;\in::£1tuatedin the land distncts created by the said act. United States v. Gear, 3 Howard, 120- dimict By the gzngtérgétgq head-mines m the Indiana territory, or in that part of it made into anew land h une 1834, chap. 76, are not subject, under any of the pre-em tion laws which ¤¥§é1;e)répgsgedrhyfxgoriéiiesiéég pre-emption lily setgerslupon the public lands. Ibid.!) . { -m1nes t l s‘ ontftiesltjhe [limted States to a writ ofinjulihllhn td ligstdriinaiig ldidlie Umwd States. is such n www as 4 the stgmtggzolgatesdnowhhold the public lands in the new States by force of the deeds of cession, and possess or h cc e wit them, and not by any municipal sovereignty which it may be supposed they 3 Howard $3* 1’¢-><=¤wed.by compact with the new States for that purpose. Po11a.rd’s Lessee vt H¤g¤¤, The shines of navigable rivers and the soil d th · vm? regawed to th St t . _ · a un er em, were not granted to the United States, but ·m,om¤ tm .n,i.nj2c€?t§°$§§?}¥§i¥¤i s§‘££T° hi? S‘“'°“ ’""° ‘*‘° °°‘“° “g"“· “°"°'°‘g“" ““"