Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 4.djvu/113



Company. A blacksmith’s shop was then put on the lot by him, and Lewis, again by proceedings at law, obtained possession of the blacksmith’s shop, it not being his improvement. The improvement was first made in 1823. The Spanish governor in 1809, after the Louisiana treaty of 1803, and before the territory west of the Perdido was out of the possession of Spain, granted the lot in front of the lot owned by Forbes and Company, to William Pollard; but the commissioners of the United States, appointed after the territory was in the full possession of the United States, refused to confirm the same “because of the want of improvement and occupation.” In 1824, Congress passed an act, the second section which gives to those who have improved them, the lots of Mobile, known under the Spanish government as “water lots,” except where the lot so improved had been alienated, and except lots of which the Spanish government had made “new grants” or orders of survey during the time the Spanish government had “power” to grant the same, in which the case the lot is to belong to the alienee or the grantee. In 1836, Congress passed an, by which the lot granted by the Spanish government of 1809, was given to the heirs, saving the right of third persons; and a patent for this lot was issued to the heirs of William Pollard, by the United States, on the 2d July, 1836. Held, that the lot lying east of the lot granted in 1802, by the Spanish government, to Forbes and Company, did not pass by that grant to Forbes and Company; that the act of Congress of 1824, did not vest the title in the lot east of the lot granted in 1802, in Forbes and Company; and that the heirs of Pollard, under the second section of the act of 1824, which excepted from the grant to the city of Mobile, &c., lots held under “new grants” from the Spanish government, and under the act of Congress of 1836, were entitled to the lot granted in 1809 by the Spanish government to William Pollard. Pollard’s heirs v. Kibbs, 14 Peters, 353.The act of Congress under which title was claimed, being a private act, and for the benefit of the city of Mobile, and certain individuals; it is fair to presume it was passed with particular reference to the claims of individuals, and the situation of the land embraced in the law at the time it was passed.The term “new grant” in its ordinary acceptation, which applied to the same subject or object, is the opposite to “old.” But such could not be its meaning in the act of Congress of 1824. The term was doubtless used in relation to the existing condition of the territory in which such grants were made. The territory had been ceded to the United States by the Louisiana treaty, but in consequence of a dispute with Spain about a boundary line, had remained in the possession of Spain. During this time Spain continued to issue evidences of titles to lands, within the territory in dispute. The term “new” was appropriately used as applicable to grants and orders of survey of this description as contradistinguished from those issued before the cession. Ibid.The time when the Spanish government had the “power” to grant lands in the territory, by every reasonable intendment of the act of Congress of 1824, must have been so designated with reference to the existing state of the territory, as between the United States and Spain; the right to the territory being in the United States and the possession in Spain. The language “during the time at which Spain had the power to grant the same,” was under such circumstances very appropriately applied to the case. It could with no propriety have been applied to the case, if Spain had full dominion over the territory, by the union of the right and the possession; and, in this view, it is no forced interpretation of the word “power” to consider it here used as imparting an imperfect right, and distinguished from complete lawful authority. Ibid.The, appointing commissioners to ascertain the titles and claims to lands on the east side of the Mississippi, and west side of the Perdido, and falling within the cession of France, embraced all claims to this description. It extended to all claims, by virtue of any grant, order of survey, or other evidence of claim, whatsoever, derived from the French, British or Spanish governments; and the reports of the commissioners show, that evidence of claims, of various descriptions, issued by the Spanish authority, down to 1810, come under their examination. And the legislation of Congress shows many laws passed, confirming incomplete titles, originating after date of the treaty between France and Spain, at St. Ildefonso. Such claims are certainly not beyond the reach of Congress to confirm; although it may require a special act of Congress for that purpose. Such is the act of Congress of July 2d, 1836, which confirms the title of William Pollard’s heirs, to the lot which is the subject of this suit. Ibid.A lot of ground, part of the ground on which fort Charlotte had been erected, in the city of Mobile, before the territory was acquired from Spain, by the United States, had been sold under an. The lot had been laid out according to a plan by which a street, called Water street, was run along the margin of Mobile river; and the street was extended over part of the site of fort Charlotte. The lot was situated west of Water street, but when sold by the United States, its eastern line was between high-water mark of the river. The purchaser of this lot improved the lot lying in front of it, east of Water street, having filled it up, at a heavy expense, thus reclaiming it from the river, which at high-water had covered it. When the lot east of Water street was purchased, the purchaser could not pass along the street, except with the aid of logs, and other timber. Water street, was, in 1823, filled up, at the cost of the city of Mobile. Taxes and assessments for making side-walks, along Water street, were paid to the city of Mobile, by the owner of the lot. The city of Mobile had brought suit for taxes, and had advertised the lot for sale, as the property of a tenant under the purchaser of the lot. On the 26th of May, 1824, Congress passed an act, which declared in the first section, that all the right and claim of the United States to the lots known as the hospital and bake-house lots, containing about three-fourths of an acre of land in the state of Alabama; and all the right and claim of the United States to all the lots not sold or confirmed to individuals, either by this or any former act, and to which no equitable title exists, in favour of any individual under this or any other act, between high-water mark and the channels of the river, and between Church street and North Boundary street, in front of Mobile, should be vested in the corporation of the city of Mobile for the use of the city forever. The second section provides, “that all the right and claim of the United States to so many of the United States to the lots known as the hospital and bake-house lots, containing about three-fourths of an acre of land, in the city of Mobile, in the state of Alabama; and also all the right and claim of the United States to all the lots not sold or confirmed to individuals, either by