Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 05.pdf/149

126 John Catron was born in Wythe County, Va., in 1779. At an early age he emigrated to Kentucky, thence to Tennessee in 1812. He served under General Jackson in the War of 1812, taking part in the battle of New Orleans. In 1815 he was admitted to the bar, commencing the practice in Overton County, Tenn. He removed to Nashville in 1818. After a residence of six years in Nashville, he was elected a

Supreme Judge. He served on the State Supreme Bench only eight years. His great judicial work was done as an associate justice of the United States Supreme Court for twenty-eight years.

He was appointed to the position by Presi dent Jackson on the last day of his term, in 1837. Judge Catron was a warm personal friend of the President, and had very ably supported him and his measures. His ser vices had been partic ularly valuable in an tagonizing the move ment in favor of Sen JACOB ator Hugh Lawson White for President. The active part that he took in the acrimo nious controversies of that time led his ene mies to say of him that he was elevated to the Supreme Bench of the State for the pur pose of deciding in a particular way what was then a mooted question with the court. Under the leadership of Judge Haywood, the court after a lengthy contest had held that before a title to land was perfected under the statutes of limitations by a seven years' adverse possession with color of title, the claimant in possession must connect his title with a grant from the State. This

holding unsettled many titles, and when Judge Catron was put on the bench and with his vote the contrary was held, his detractors were quick to make the charge against him that he had agreed to so decide the question before his election. No substantial basis for the charge was ever shown. Judge Catron was not an educated man. He broadened very much after he was made a judge, and by diligent application acquired a very wide learning. His parti san nature constantly appeared in his opin ions. The statement of the reasons lead ing him to a conclu sion was often vehe ment. One of his strongest opinions was in the proceeding to disbar Calvin M. Smith ( i Yerger, 228), an attorney, for hav ing killed a man in a duel in Kentucky, to which State the par ties had gone after the quarrel. Duelling was common in Ten nessee; and Judge Catron himself, when a lawyer riding the PECK. circuit, carried a brace of duelling-pistols as a part of his outfit, and never declined a challenge to use them. But he thoroughly reprehended the practice, and struck it a terrific blow in that opinion in which he denounced duelling with a greater vigor than he afterwards did gambling in the Smith & Lane case. He warned the bar that every lawyer violating the laws to sup press duelling would be disbarred. The Constitutional Convention of 1834 followed in his footsteps, and deprived a participant in a duel of the right to hold any office of profit or trust in the State. And this may