Page:Hempstead's Reports.pdf/420

Rh   because the decision must depend mainly on principles already decided in the Winter cases, and in the De Villemont case. It is true that this is in some respects different; but that difference is rather formal than substantial.

I deem the claim invalid upon two grounds: first, that the conditions of the grant were not complied with; and I will merely remark that I cannot subscribe to the argument that it was a grant without conditions; second, that there was no authoritative survey of the grant, which was undoubtedly required by the Spanish regulations. For my reasons on this point, I refer to the opinion in the case of the Heirs of Elisha Winter. Nor do I deem the calls of the grant sufficiently certain to separate any land from the royal domain without a survey.

On these two grounds, the claim must be rejected.

Decreed accordingly.

From this decree the petitioners appealed to the supreme court; and at the December term, 1851, the case was argued there by Mr. Webster and Mr. Johnson for the appellants, and Mr. Crittenden, attorney-general, for the United States. It is reported in 13 Howard's S.C. Rep. 250.

CATRON, J., delivered the following opinion:— In Angust, 1796, James Clamorgan petitioned Colonel Delassus, then acting as commandant of the post and dependency of New Madrid, for a grant of land fronting on the Mississippi River for many miles, and running back to the western branches of White River, including a section of country equal in area to 536,904 arpens, as was afterwards ascertained by measurement.

To obtain title and possession of this large quantity of land, Clamorgan represented that he was a merchant residing in St. Louis; that he had been strongly encouraged by the governorgeneral of the Province of Louisiana to establish a manufactory of cordage, fit and proper for the use of his Spanish