Hall v. Papin

65 U.S. 132, 16 L. Ed. 641, 24 How. 132, 1860 U.S. LEXIS 380

• Court: Supreme Court of the United States
• Decided: January 28, 1861
• Status: Published

Opinion

Mr. Justice "WAYNE

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is a suit for the recovery of ten acres of land; which is admitted by the parties to be a part of the northwest quarter of section three, in township eight north, of range eight east, of the fourth principal meridian, in the district of lands subject to sale formerly at Springfield, Illinois, and afterwards at Quincy.

Upon the trial below, the plaintiff gave in evidence: 1st, ,the act of Congress of May 15, 1820, entitled, an act for the relief of the inhabitants of the village of Peoria, in the State of Illinois ; 2d, the act of the 3d March, 1823; 3d, the report of Edward Coles, in the 3d vol. State Papers, page 421; 4th, the special and general plat and field-notes of the survey of the village, made May 11, 1837, approved September 1, 1841, and approved by the surveyor of public lands in Illinois and Missouri; 5th, the deed of lot 13 by Bartholomew Fortier and his wife, Angelica, to plaintiff, September 23, 1854; 6th, depositions showing that Angelica was the only representative of Francis Willette, and that, when she made her claim before J. W. Coles, she was the wife of Louis Pilette, and that she married Fortier in 1838.'

The defendant below, here the plaintiff in error, introduced in evidence a patent from the United States to Seth and Josiah Fulton, dated March 18, 1837, a pre-emption certificate of the same, laid July 11, 1833, and a conveyance by the Fultons to him of the land covered by the patent dated the lltli July, 1838. The patentees, Seth and Josiah Fulton, had lived upon the quarter section for several years before their entry was made, and Hall, also, had occupied the quarter section for some years before the Fultons sold to him. Also, a patent from the United States to the representatives of Francis Willette, for a lot which had been claimed by them under the act of the 3d March, 1823, and sundry depositions, which it is not necessary fc us to notice in this opinion.

’ The deiendant in error, Joseph L. Papin, claims the ten acres sued for in virtue of his purchase from Bartholomew Fortier, and Angelica, his wife, she being the sole representative of her father, and had' claimed the land under the act of Congress of the 15th May, 1820, 3 Stat. at Large, 605, and that of the 3d March, 1823, U. S. Stat. at Large, 786.

The first' of these acts declares, that “ every person, or the legal representatives'of any person, who claims a lot or'lots in the'village of Peoria, in. the State of Jilin ois, shall, on ór before the first day of October next, deliver to the register of the land office for the district of Edwardstille a notice in writing of his or her claim, and it shall be the duty of the register to make to the Secretary of the Treasury a report of all claims filed with him, with the substance of the evidence ., in support thereof; and also his opinion, and such remarks respecting the claim as he may think proper to make; which report, with a list of; the claims which, in the opinion of the register, ought to be confirmed, shall be laid by the Secretary of. the Treasury before. Congress for their'determination.” Under this act claims were made by Louis Pilette in right of his wife, Angelica, the daughter of Francis Willette, and they appear in the register’s repo'rt, dated the 10th November, 1820, entered as numbers 11,12, and 18. That report, however, was not finally acted upon by Congress until the 3d March, 1823. The first section .of that act declares, “ there is'hereby "granted to each of the French and Canadian inhabitants, and other, •settlers in the village of Peoria, in the State of Illinois, whose • claims are contained in a report made by' the register, of the land office at Edwardsvüle, in pursuance of the act of Congress approved May 15, 1820, and who had settled a lot in the village aforesaid, prior to the'first day of Jánuary, 1813, and . who have not heretofore received a confirmatory claim or donation of any tract of land or. village lot from the. United States, the lot s6 settled upon and improved, where the same shall not exceed two acres; and where the' same shall exceed two acres, every such claimant shall be confirmed in .a. quantity not exceeding temaeres: Provided, nothing in this act contained shall be so construed- as to affect the right, if any such there be, of any other person or persons to the said lots, or any part of them, derived from the United States,.or any other source Whatever, or be construed as a pledge on the part of the United States to maké good any deficiency occasioned by aiiy other interfering claim or claims.” And it was made the duty.of the surveyor of the public lands of'the United States for that district to cause a survey to be made of the several lots, and to designate in a plat thereof the lots confirmed and set apart to each claimant, and forward the same to the Secretary of the Treasury, who shall cause patents to be issued in favor of such claimants, as in other cases.

The land sued for is described in the declaration as an out-lot or field of ten acres, near, the old village of Peoria, in the State of Illinois, confirmed to Louis Pilette in right of his wife, •Angelica, the daughter of the late Erancis Wjllette, by the act of Congress of the 3d March, 1823, entitled “An act to confirm certain lots in the village of Peoria, it being claim No. 13 of the report made by' the register of the land office at Edwardsville, in pursuance of an act of Congress of the 15th May, 1820.” The lot is claimed in the report of the register as an out-lot or field, containing fifteen or. twenty arpents of land, situated three-fourths of a mile northeastwardly (northwestwardly) from the village of Peoria. There can be no uncertainty whether the old or new village was meant, as the survey establishes it to have been near the old; and in our consideration of the act of the 3d March, 1823, our conclusion' is, that that act can only embrace lots in the new village, or others appertaining to it.

The old village of Peoria was situated on the northwest shore of Lake Peoria, about one mile and a half above the. lower extremity or outlet of the lake.. The village had been established by Erenchmen at- an early date, previous to the recollection of any one. • About- the years 17.78, 1779, the first house was built on what was then called La Tille de Maillet, afterwards the new village, of Peoria, and afterwards known by the name of Eort Clark. It was.situated about one mile and a half below the old village, immediately at the lower front or outlet of the lake. This situation was preferred on account of the water being better and the place more healthy -than at the old village. In consequence, the inhabitants gradually deserted the old village, and before the years 1796,1797, had entirely abandoned it, and removed to the new village.

The inhabitants, were' generally Indian traders, hunters, and voyagers. They formed a link of connection between the French residing on the waters of the great lakes and the Mississippi river. From that happy facility of adapting themselves to their situation and associates for which the French are so remarkable, the inhabitants of Peoria generally lived in harmony with their savage neighbors. But about the year 1781, an apprehension of Indian hostilities induced them to abandon the new village. They returned to it, however, after the peace of 1783, between England and the United States and the powers which had engaged in our revolutionary war, and continued there until the autumn of the year 1812. Then they were forcibly removed from it and their village destroyed by a Captain Craig, of the Illinois militia, on the ground, it was said, that himself and his company had been fired upon in the night by Indians, while at anchor in their boats before the village, with whom Craig suspected the villagers to be on too intimate and friendly terms. Craig and his company were in the service of the United States. The inhabitants of Peoria settled there without any grant or permission from any Government. Each person took such a portion of unoccupied land as he wished to occupy and cultivate; but as soon as he abandoned it, his right to the land ceased with his possession, and it reverted to its natural state. It was then liable to be improved and . cultivated by any who thought proper to take possession. Sometimes a settler sold out his improvements before abandoning. That and the itinerant character of the inhabitants, account for the number of persons who claimed the same lot. As was usual in French villages, the lots in the village were small. ' They were large enough for' houses, out-houses, and gardens, and in some instances, those who were able to do so cultivated what were known as out-lots or fields near to, but outside or beyond, the village. Those out-fields were of different sizes, depending upon the industry and means of persons to till them. The village lots, as contradistinguished from out-lots, contained generally the half of an arpent. Neither the old nor new • village had ever been surveyed or occupied upon any fixed plan. Seventy claims were made under the act of the 15th May, 1820. They were returned on the report of the register to the- Secretary of the Treasury, on the 10th of November, 1826. In a little less than three years the act-of 1823 was passed. Coles’s Report, 3 Am. State Papers, Land.

The narrative just given has an important bearing upon the construction of the acts of 1820 and 1823. It serves to show the locality of the yillage of Peoria, for which those acts were passed, the purposes to be accomplished, and the extent and conditions upon which a lot may be confirmed to a claimant who had settled and improved a lot in the village before the first day of January, 1813, and -who had not before received a confirmation of claims, or donation of any tract of land or village lot from the United States, when the lot settled upon and improved did not exceed two acres; and when it did, to confirm to the claimant ten acres, subject to the proviso in the act.

' It was a gratuity to such settlers of a single lot in the village. Such was the first section of the act of 3d March, 1823. It gave to the claimant an incipient or inchoate right to a lot, when, in conformity with the second section of the act, a survey had been made of the several lots reported by the register, with a designation or a plat thereof of the lot confirmed and set apart to each clamant. When that had been done, the claimant became a confirmee under the act; and his fight to the lot, as -between himself and the United States, was complete. Such was the view taken by this court of the acts of 15th May, 1820, and of the 3d March, 1823, in Bryan and Forsyth, 19 Howard, 336. ' Its language then was, when the survey was made, and the plats returned and approved and recorded by the surveyor general .of Illinois and Missouri, and recognised as valid at the General Laud Office, it bound the parties to it, the confirmee and the United States.

• The law was intended to grant the lot settled upon and improved, and no other land described as an equivalent. But, in this instance, no survey was made in conformity with the 2d section of the act until the 11th April, 1837. It was not examined and approved by the surveyor of the public lands in Illinois and Missouri until the first September, 1840, seven years after Seth and Josiah Fulton had made their entry upon the quarter section, and three years after they had received their- patent for it' from the United States. The land was unconditionally sold to them. Hall, the plaintiff in error, bought from the Eulfons in July, 1838. Under the decision of this coui’t, already cited, no location of the out-lots could be made upon this quarter section after the patent had. been issued, to the Pultons. It follows, then, that--'there was.no confirmation of the land sued for. to the representative of Francis Willette; and, consequently, that the quit-claim conveyance by Angelica Fortier and her husband, of the 23d September, 1854, to Papin, the defendant in error, gave to her no title to the ten acres for which he has sued. We have shown that the inchoate right of' the claimant under the act— suf posing that no out-lot was meant to be confirmed — was subject to a survey and designation before it could be matured into a title. The requirement of a survey before a claimant could be considered as having a legal title to land upon a concession, has frequently been passed upon by this court; and the case' before' us is within that of Menard Heirs v. Massey, in 8 Howard, 309.

It now remains for us to consider two of the instructions which were asked by the defendant in the court below, which the.court refused to give to the jury.

They were: If- the jury believed from the evidence that the original French settlement or improvement, upon which the plaintiff’s claim in this suit is based, was not upon or within the northwest quarter of section 3, in township eight north, in range eight, east of the 4th meridian, nor located upon that quarter section by the United States survey or-until after that was sold to the Fultons by the United States, that the jury were to find for the defendant. . .

The court did not give the first branch of the instructions asked, and, in our opinion, rightly so; for there, was no proof in the case to show that the French settlement, which was the basis .of the suit, was not a part of it. Indeed, no such instruction would have -been asked; for it was admitted by the parties that the tract sued for was .a part of the quarter section described in the patent to the Fultons. But the court refused, also, the second branch of the prayer, which, in our opinion, should have been given, and gave the jury an- instruct! >u as follows: He told .the jury that the acts of Congress of 1820 and 1823, taken in connection with the report of the register of the land office and the survey under the authority of law, vested in the parties entitled, under the acts of Congress, with an absolute right of property in the lot surveyed; and that Angelica, the person named in the evidence, was the daughter and sole heir of her father, Francis Willette, the settler; that she was within the meaning of the law; and her claim being in the report, was confirmed by the act of 1823.

And the jury was further instructed, that the survey of tlm claimed lots, as reported by the register, was duly made -and' approved, because the survey for the purposes of this action made the title of the claimants under the acts of Congress complete; and that the court was of the opinion that the persons taking uuder the patent of March 18th, 1837, and under the entry of July 11th, 1833, must be considered as taking their grant subject to the contingency of the better title which might thereafter be perfected under the acts of 1820 and 1823; and when a party brought himself within those acts, his title was the paramount titlej notwithstanding the patent to the Fultons.

The defendant, in our view, had asked for such an instruction as ho had a right to have under the authorities cited in a previous part of this opinion. The instruction given to the jury was erroneous.

The defendant had also asked in his second prayer, that the court would instruct, the jury, if they believed from the evidence that by the plaintiffs recovering in this case the lega! representatives of Willette w-ould be confirmed in more than ten acres of Peoria French elaim.s, that they xverc to find for the 'defendant- The prayer is inartificially drawn; but whe-n taken in connection with the evidence in the ease and the act of 1823, its purport could not have been misunderstood. The object of the defendant -was to get an instruction from the court, upon the evidence he had given, in conformity with the limitation in the act, as to the quantity of land which could bo con tinned to a claimant under it. It declares xvhen the lot shall not exceed two acres, that it shall be confirmed: and when the same shall exceed two acres, that every such claimant shall be confirmed in a quantity not exceeding ten acres.

■ Pilette, the husband of Angelica, had filed in her behalf, in the year 1820, before the register, claims fqr lots eleven, twelve, and.thirteen. The first, being the land numbered as number eleven, contained about one-half of an arpent of land; number twelve the ‘same quantity, situated directly in the rear of eleven, and separated from it by a street; number thirteen was a claim for an out-lot or field, containing fifteen or twenty acres of land, and situated about three-fourths of a mile northeastwardly (northwestwardly) from the village of Peoria; number eleven was also claimed before the register by Felix Fóntain, his claim being.in the report No. 41; but it turned opt,’ according to the survey, that both were for the same land, and that they covered the southwest part of Etienne Barnard’s claim number 1,-the northeast part of it being also covered by'another claim of Felix’Fontain, numbered in the survey as 42.' For land.so described, containing fifty-four thousand eight "hundred and ninety and fourteen-hundredths of a square foot,-designated as covered by the claims one, eleven, forty- • one) and forty-two,' a patent was issued by the United States to the representatives of Francis Willette, on the 28th August, 1845. That patent was introduced in evidence by the defendant below, the plaintiff in error. The purpose was to show that the heirs of W^'^tte having already had one confirmation 'of “a lot settled a.» improved,” under the act of 3d March, 1823, that they were not entitled to another, or to any confirmation of the title to the land in litigation. If that-were allowed, they would get more than the ten acres, to which every claimant was limited by the act.. Our construction of the act is, that.-.a claimant was to have one confirmation .of “a lot so settled and improved,” which had been claimed, and entered in the report of the register of the land office at Edwardsville, in pursuance of the-act of the 15th May, 1820; that no claimant, though he shall appear in the register’s report ás having made several claims, could, after having had one of them confirmed, transfer any right of property in the .Others to any persons whatever.'

Papin, the plaintiff below, took from the representatives of Willette a qnit-claim conveyance for the land for which he sues on the 23d September, 1854 — more than thirty years after the passage of the act of the 3d March, 1823 — more than twenty years after the Fultons had made their entry upon the quarter section — eighteen years after they received their patent for it from the United States — seventeen after Hall had the land in possession by purchase from the Fultons, and ten years after the patent of confirmation to the representatives of Willette had been recorded in the General Land Office. Under these circumstances, Papin took a conveyance, which gave him no right to the land. When the plaintiff in error, Hall, asked the court to instruct the jury, that if they believed from the evidence that, by the plaiutiff’s recovery in this case, the legal representatives of Francis Willette will have been confirmed in more than ten acres of Peoria French claims, they were to find for the defendant, the prayer ought to have been apprehended by the court, according to its .'relation to the subject-matter in controversy, and such an instruction should have been- given accordingly to the jmy. The refusal, then, was error.

For the reasons given, we shall direct the judgment of the court below to be reversed; that a venire facias de novo shall be issued; and that the court, in its further proceedings in the cause thereon, conform to the rulings of this opinion.