Magwire v. Tyler

This case came up on writ of error to the Supreme Court of the State of Missouri. It was commenced in the St. Louis Land Court, (equity side,) by petition and summons, agreeably to the code of Missouri. The plaintiff, John Magwire, claimed four arpents by four of land lying in the county of St. Louis, of which the defendants, Mary L. Tyler and others, were wrongfully in possession. The petition prayed a decree for title in them-for possession-for an account of profits, and an injunction against waste. The defendants answered at length, denying the material facts set forth in the petition, and asserting that they were rightfully in possession. The Land Court heard the cause, found the facts specially, and made a decree in favor of the defendants, dismissing the petition, which was affirmed afterwards by the Supreme Court of the State, and the plaintiff took this writ of error. What the facts in dispute were, and how they were found by the court of original jurisdiction, will appear by reference to the opinion of Mr. Justice Catron. The defendants in error moved to dismiss the writ for want of jurisdiction, and the court heard the argument on that motion, and upon the errors assigned by the plaintiff in the judgment of the State court at the same time.

Mr. Ewing, of Ohio, for plaintiff in error. The two confirmations were connected in the same concession and included in one survey. That survey was recognised by the United States and acquiesced in by the parties for more than fifteen years. It vested an inchoate legal title in both according to their respective interests. It never was appealed from. Though the patent was irregular, yet, having issued, the legal title attends it. Kissell vs. St. Louis, (18 How., 22;) Elliott vs. Pierson, (1 Pet., 341.) But it did not affect the equitable rights of parties under the confirmation and survey. No appeal lay to the Secretary of the Interior. The Surveyor General is alone responsible for it, and he acts under no directions but those of the law and the judgment of the commissioners who confirmed the title. The survey of 1851, under which the patent issued, was a gross violation of right; it was made under the order of the Secretary, who had no authority against the expressed opinion of all the officers who had authority. This court has decided, and it is not denied, that the plaintiff cannot sustain ejectment against the patent. West vs. Cochran, (17 How., 416.) Wilcox vs. Jackson, (13 Pet., 517.) But the equity of the plaintiff (and that is what he now claims) was complete by the confirmation and survey.

This court has jurisdiction to review the State court in a case like the present.

Brazeau claims an equitable title to a specific tract of land, described in his bill. He claims it under a statute of the United States, and the acts of public officers under that statute; and the decision of the State court was against his title. This gives jurisdiction; and it is quite immaterial whether it was decided 'upon a question of fact or law.' Lytle vs. The State of Arkansas, (22 How., 202, 203;) Chouteau vs. Eckhart, (2 How., 372;) Mobile vs. Eslava, (16 Pet., 234;) Martin vs. Hunter's Lessee, (1 Wh., 357-8-9;) Smith vs. The State of Maryland, (6 Cr., 280.)

Mr. Hill, of Missouri, and Mr. Stanton, of Washington city, for defendants, claimed that the legal merits of the case were against the plaintiff on many grounds.

1. The confirmation to Brazeau was void, not being within the act of Congress.

2. If not void, Brazeau's representatives are concluded by the patent.

3d. The patent of 1852 was conclusive and regular, being founded on what was in fact a resurvey of Soulard's survey.

4. Brazeau's grant was unauthorized because it came from the Lieutenant Governor, who had no power to make it; it was not definitely located; there was no survey nor plat of it on record.

5. A court of equity, after this lapse of time, cannot change the rights recognised heretofore, and especially where it will disturb the possession of innocent purchasers after the lands have greatly risen in value.

6. The plaintiff, who claims under Pierre Chouteau, is estopped by the boundary line established between Labeaume and Chouteau in 1799.

7. This case is settled by the decision in West vs. Cochran, (17 How., 416.) The plaintiff has no right to go into equity and there claim that his land shall be located where the legal title cannot be located.

But this court has no jurisdiction. It must appear from the record, either expressly or by necessary intendment, that some question which this court has a right to re-examine has been decided by the State court, otherwise the writ must be dismissed. Medbury vs. Ohio, (24 How., 414;) Crowell vs. Randall, (10 Peters, 368;) McKenney vs. Carroll, (12 Peters, 66;) Ocean Insurance Company vs. Polly, (13 Peters, 157;) Coon's Lessee vs. Gallaher, (15 Peters, 19;) Armstrong vs. Treasurer, &c., (16 Peters, 281;) Fulton vs. McAfee, (16 Peters, 149;) Commercial Bank vs. Buckingham's Executors, (5 Howard, 317;) Smith vs. Hunter, (7 Howard, 738;) Lawler vs. Walker, (14 Howard, 149;) Robertson vs. Coulter, (16 Howard, 107.)

Mr. Justice CATRON.