James M'Donald's Heirs v. Smalley

Supreme Court

James M'Donald's Heirs v. Smalley

31 U.S. 261, 8 L. Ed. 391, 6 Pet. 261, 1832 U.S. LEXIS 471

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedMarch 13, 1832

StatusPublished

Cited by12 cases

This text of 31 U.S. 261 (James M'Donald's Heirs v. Smalley) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

James M'Donald's Heirs v. Smalley, 31 U.S. 261, 8 L. Ed. 391, 6 Pet. 261, 1832 U.S. LEXIS 471 (1832).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr Chief Justice Marshall

delivered tk opinion of the-Court.

This suit was brought in the court of the United States for the seventh circuit, and district of Ohio,- to obtain a- convey-. anee for land which the defendants hold by a senior patent,, and which the plaintiffs claim under a prior entry. The bill was dismissed by the circuit court, arid the plaintiffs have appealed to this court.

Serious doubts exist respecting the validity of the entry under which the claim has been made; and several points have-been discussed at the bar. It is unnecessary to decide more than one of these questions, because that is decisive of the case. David Anderson, in whose name the entry under which the. plaintiffs claim was made, was dead at the time. The entry, therefore, as was determined in Galt and others v. Galloway, 4 Peters, 332, 345, is, in the state of Ohio, a nullity - This being the foundation of the plaintiffs? title; they must fail in their action.

Counsel at the bar have endeavoured to distinguish this case-from that, by treating the entry as one made in the- name of the wrong person-, through the mistake of the surveyor.

We do not think he is sustained by-.the fact or the law of the case. The decree is affirmed with cost?.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Mr Chief Justice Marshall

delivered tk opinion of the-Court.

This suit was brought in the court of the United States for the seventh circuit, and district of Ohio,- to obtain a- convey-. anee for land which the defendants hold by a senior patent,, and which the plaintiffs claim under a prior entry. The bill was dismissed by the circuit court, arid the plaintiffs have appealed to this court.

Serious doubts exist respecting the validity of the entry under which the claim has been made; and several points have-been discussed at the bar. It is unnecessary to decide more than one of these questions, because that is decisive of the case. David Anderson, in whose name the entry under which the. plaintiffs claim was made, was dead at the time. The entry, therefore, as was determined in Galt and others v. Galloway, 4 Peters, 332, 345, is, in the state of Ohio, a nullity - This being the foundation of the plaintiffs? title; they must fail in their action.

Counsel at the bar have endeavoured to distinguish this case-from that, by treating the entry as one made in the- name of the wrong person-, through the mistake of the surveyor.

We do not think he is sustained by-.the fact or the law of the case. The decree is affirmed with cost?.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

31 U.S. 261, 8 L. Ed. 391, 6 Pet. 261, 1832 U.S. LEXIS 471, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/james-mdonalds-heirs-v-smalley-scotus-1832.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack