Stanford v. Taylor

Supreme Court

Stanford v. Taylor

59 U.S. 409, 15 L. Ed. 453, 18 How. 409, 1855 U.S. LEXIS 711

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedApril 25, 1856

StatusPublished

Cited by21 cases

This text of 59 U.S. 409 (Stanford v. Taylor) 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

Stanford v. Taylor, 59 U.S. 409, 15 L. Ed. 453, 18 How. 409, 1855 U.S. LEXIS 711 (1856).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice CATRON

delivered the opinion of the court.

■ The plaintiff, Stanford, sued Taylor in ejectment, claiming title to the land in dispute under a concession from “ Don Francisco Cruzat, lieutenant-governor, dated in 1785, who decreed as .follows:—

“ In view of what is set forth in the present memorial, presented by Angela Chovin, widow of the'deceased Miguel-Bolica, of this town of St. Louis, under date of the sixth of May of the current year, I have granted to her, in proprietary title, for. her, her heirs, and others who may represent her right, forty arpens front of land upon forty in depth, along the river called De los Padres, (Des Peres,) from the north to the south, which is bounded on the one side by the lands of Louis Robert, and on the other by the domain of the king,” &c.

. This claim was confirmed in general terms to Jean F. Perry, as assignee, by the board of commissioners sitting at St. Louis, in 1811, for 1,600 arpens, “ situate in the district of St. Louis, on the River Des Peres,” and ordered to be surveyed “ conformably to the possession, by virtue of a concession, or order of survey, from Francis Cruzat, lieutenant-general.”

The plaintiff derives title under Perry.

The survey directed to be made by the board of commis *412 sioners was not executed till 1834, when the surveyor-general ordered the land to be located west of Louis Robert’s tract, and on both sides of the River Des Peres. But the plaintiff insists that the land granted and confirmed adjoins Robert’s tract on the east, and that the location is so plainly apparent on the face of the concession as not to require a survey ; and, furthermore, he offered to show by proof that "the possession of Perry, the confirmee, was part of a tract, of land east of the tract of Louis Robert, of seven by forty arpens, and adjoining it; and, if located there, would include the premises in controversy. The court rejected the evidence offered, and permitted the defendant to give in evidence the official survey of the tract of 1,600 arpens; to overcome the effect of which, the plaintiff offered to prove .that the official survey was improperly made west of Robert’s tract, and not adjoining it; whereas it should have been made east of the same. This evidence was also rejected, when the court instructed the jury as follows: “ The parties agreeing that the official survey of confirmation, under which the plaintiff claims the land in dispute, does not include the premises sued for, the jury ought to find for the defendant.”

To the rejection of the parol evidence, and to the .charge of the court, the plaintiff excepted. ’

The law is settled, that where there is a specific tract of land confirmed, according to ascertained boundaries, the confirmee takes a title on which he may sue in ejectment. The case of Bissell v. Penrose, 8 How. 317, lays down the true rule.

But where the claim has no certain limits, and the judgment of confirmation carries along with it the condition that the land shall be surveyed, and severed from the public domain and the lands of others, then it is not open to controversy, that the title attaches to no land; nor has a court of justice any authority in law to- ascertain and establish its boundaries, this being reserved to the executive department. The case of West v. Cochran, 17 How. 403, need only be referred to as settling • this point. And the question here is, whether the concession to Perry is indefinite and vague, and subject to be located at different places.

It is to be forty by forty arpens in extent; it is to lie along the River Des Peres, from the north to the' south; and to be bounded on the one side by the lands of Louis Robert, and on the other by the domain of the king. On which side of Robert’s land it is to lie, we are not informed, further than that it is to lie along the river from north to south. The record shows, that if surveyed west of Robert’s tract, the forty by forty arpens includes the 'River Des Peres; but, if surveyed east of Robert’s land, it will not include the river. The uncertainty of out- *413 boundary in this instance is too manifest, in our opinion, to require discussion to show that a public survey is required to attach the concession to any land.

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

Mr. Justice CATRON

delivered the opinion of the court.

■ The plaintiff, Stanford, sued Taylor in ejectment, claiming title to the land in dispute under a concession from “ Don Francisco Cruzat, lieutenant-governor, dated in 1785, who decreed as .follows:—

“ In view of what is set forth in the present memorial, presented by Angela Chovin, widow of the'deceased Miguel-Bolica, of this town of St. Louis, under date of the sixth of May of the current year, I have granted to her, in proprietary title, for. her, her heirs, and others who may represent her right, forty arpens front of land upon forty in depth, along the river called De los Padres, (Des Peres,) from the north to the south, which is bounded on the one side by the lands of Louis Robert, and on the other by the domain of the king,” &c.

. This claim was confirmed in general terms to Jean F. Perry, as assignee, by the board of commissioners sitting at St. Louis, in 1811, for 1,600 arpens, “ situate in the district of St. Louis, on the River Des Peres,” and ordered to be surveyed “ conformably to the possession, by virtue of a concession, or order of survey, from Francis Cruzat, lieutenant-general.”

The plaintiff derives title under Perry.

The survey directed to be made by the board of commis *412 sioners was not executed till 1834, when the surveyor-general ordered the land to be located west of Louis Robert’s tract, and on both sides of the River Des Peres. But the plaintiff insists that the land granted and confirmed adjoins Robert’s tract on the east, and that the location is so plainly apparent on the face of the concession as not to require a survey ; and, furthermore, he offered to show by proof that "the possession of Perry, the confirmee, was part of a tract, of land east of the tract of Louis Robert, of seven by forty arpens, and adjoining it; and, if located there, would include the premises in controversy. The court rejected the evidence offered, and permitted the defendant to give in evidence the official survey of the tract of 1,600 arpens; to overcome the effect of which, the plaintiff offered to prove .that the official survey was improperly made west of Robert’s tract, and not adjoining it; whereas it should have been made east of the same. This evidence was also rejected, when the court instructed the jury as follows: “ The parties agreeing that the official survey of confirmation, under which the plaintiff claims the land in dispute, does not include the premises sued for, the jury ought to find for the defendant.”

To the rejection of the parol evidence, and to the .charge of the court, the plaintiff excepted. ’

The law is settled, that where there is a specific tract of land confirmed, according to ascertained boundaries, the confirmee takes a title on which he may sue in ejectment. The case of Bissell v. Penrose, 8 How. 317, lays down the true rule.

But where the claim has no certain limits, and the judgment of confirmation carries along with it the condition that the land shall be surveyed, and severed from the public domain and the lands of others, then it is not open to controversy, that the title attaches to no land; nor has a court of justice any authority in law to- ascertain and establish its boundaries, this being reserved to the executive department. The case of West v. Cochran, 17 How. 403, need only be referred to as settling • this point. And the question here is, whether the concession to Perry is indefinite and vague, and subject to be located at different places.

It is to be forty by forty arpens in extent; it is to lie along the River Des Peres, from the north to the' south; and to be bounded on the one side by the lands of Louis Robert, and on the other by the domain of the king. On which side of Robert’s land it is to lie, we are not informed, further than that it is to lie along the river from north to south. The record shows, that if surveyed west of Robert’s tract, the forty by forty arpens includes the 'River Des Peres; but, if surveyed east of Robert’s land, it will not include the river. The uncertainty of out- *413 boundary in this instance is too manifest, in our opinion, to require discussion to show that a public survey is required to attach the concession to any land.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

59 U.S. 409, 15 L. Ed. 453, 18 How. 409, 1855 U.S. LEXIS 711, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stanford-v-taylor-scotus-1856.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack