Page:United States v. Samperyac.pdf/32

Rh  Rh    to the supreme court of the United States, and the case was argued at the January term, 1833, by Mr. Prentiss and Mr. White, for the appellants, and by Mr. Taney, attorney general, and Mr. Fulton, for the United States, and will be found fully reported in 7 Peters, 222. At the same term, after stating the facts and pleadings, Mr. Justice Thompson delivered the opinion of the court as follows:—

The objections which have been taken at the bar to this decree, may be considered under the following points:—

1. Whether, under the act of 1824, the court had authority to entertain the bill of review; and if not, then,

2. Whether the act of 1830 is a constitutional law, and confers such authority.

3. Whether the proceedings on this bill of review can be sustained under the act of 1830.

4. Whether, admitting Stewart to be a bonâ fide purchaser of the claim of Samperyac, he is protected against the title set up by the United States.

1. We think it unnecessary to go into an examination of the questions which have been made under the ﬁrst point. Although the act of 1824 directs, that every petition which shall be presented under its provisions, shall be conducted according to the rules of a court of equity, it may admit of doubt, whether all the powers of a court of chancery, in relation to bills of review, are vested in that court. And as the view taken by this court upon the other points renders a decision upon this unnecessary, we pass it over without expressing any opinion upon it.

2. The ground, upon which it has been argued that the act of 1830 is unconstitutional, is, that a right had become vested in Stewart before the act was passed; and that the effect and operation of the law is to deprive him of a vested right. To determine the force and application of this objection, it becomes necessary to look at the claim as it now appears before the court. It is found, by the decree of the court below, and is admitted at the bar, that Samperyac is a fictitious person. That the petition, purporting to have been presented by him to Miro, governor of the Province of Louisiana, and the order of survey, alleged to have been made thereupon, are forgeries. These are