68
Sess. I. Ch. 185.
1824.
this or any former act, and to which no equitable title exists, in favourof any individual, under this or any other act, between high-watermark and the channel of the river, and between Church street andNorth Boundary street, in front of the said city, be, and the same arehereby, vested in the mayor and aldermen of the said city of Mobile ,for the time being, and their successors in office, for the sole use andbenefit of the said city forever.
Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That all the right and claim ofthe United States to so many of the lots of ground, east of Waterstreet, and between Church street and North Boundary street, now
of the lots east of Water street, and between Church street and North Boundary street, now known aswater lots, as are situated between the channel of the river and the front of the lots, known under theSpanish government as water lots, in the said city of Mobile wherever improvements have been made,be, and the same are hereby, vested in the several proprietors and occupants of each of the lots hereto-fore fronting on the river Mobile, &c.” The city of Mobile claimed from the defendant in error the lotheld by him, under the purchase from the United States , and the improvements before described ; assert-ing that the same was vested in the city by the first section of the act of 1824. Held, that under the pro-visions of the second section of the act, the defendant in error claiming under the purchase made underthe act of 1818, and under the act of 1824, was entitled to the lot. The city of Mobile v. Eslava, 16Peters, 261.
The right relinquished by the United States was to the water lots (( lying east of Water street, andbetween Church street and North Boundary street, now known as water lots, as are situated betweenthe channel of the river and the front of the lots, known under the Spanish government as water lots,in the said city of Mobile , wherever improvements have been made.” The improvements refer to thewater and not to the front lots. A reasonable construction of the act requires, the improvements tohave been made or owned by the proprietor of the front lot, at the time of the passage of the act.Being proprietor of the front lot, and having improved the water lot opposite and east of Water street,constitute the conditions on which the right under the statute vests. Ibid.
A grant by the Spanish government confirmed by the United States , was made of a lot of groundin the city of Mobile, running from a certain boundary eastwardly to the river Mobile . The land adja-cent to this lot, and extending from high-water mark to the channel of the river, in front of the lot, washeld by the grantee as appurtenant to the last and above high-water mark. The city of Mobile institutedan action to recover the same, asserting a title to it under the act of Congress of May 26, 1824, grant-ing certain lots of ground to the corporation of the city of Mobile , and to certain individuals in the saidcity. Held, that this lot was within the exceptions of the act of 1824 ; and no right to the same wasvested in the city of Mobile by the act. The city of Mobile v. Hallett, 16 Peters, 261.
Ejectment to recover possession of a lot in the city of Mobile, Alabama . The defendants, in thecircuit court, claimed title to the land under Lucy Landry, who was the devisee of one Geronio; whohaving been in possession of the lot at the corner of St. Francis and Royal streets, occupied it untilhis death. On the arrival of Lucy Landry at age, she occupied the lot as her own property;and in 1818, she sold and conveyed it by deed to certain persons; stating the eastern boundaryin the deed to be the Mobile river . These persons, on the same day, conveyed the premises to OliverHolman, who entered on it and improved it, by erecting houses and a wharf upon it; and continued tooccupy it as a merchant in co-partnership with one Charles Browrf, who lived in Boston , until Decem-ber, 1822, when he died; leaving, as his heirs, the lessors of the plaintiff. The possession of LucyLandry, of the Jot, commenced in 1800, and extended on Royal street, and on the east followed the high-water mark on the river. The land was not subject to inundation, though in many places the waterran across it. Until the improvements made by Holman, the lot was not susceptible of occupancy.There was a ridge of high land formed of shells and artificial deposits, to the east of which, to the river,the lot was situated; and the ridge was protected by the Spanish authorities, no person being permittedby them to improve on the ground or to remove the earth. It was called <( The King’s Highway,” orlanding place. Questions as to the title of the proprietors of the adjacent lots above Water street to thelots extending to the river, prevailed until 1824; when on the 26th May, 1824, a law was passed, whichgranted the lots, known as the water lots under the Spanish government, to the owners of the adjacentgrounds. The improvements were made by Holman in 1S19 or 1820. The defendants below gave inevidence, to maintain their title, the title to them from Lucy Landry, through her grantees to OliverHolman : a title bond from Holman to Brown, for half of the Jot in controversy, by which a deed wasto be executed two years after the date of the bond ; and an act of the legislature of Alabama , passedin December, 1823, after the decease of Holman, authorizing the administratrix of Holman, then resid-ing in Boston , where administration of the estate of the deceased had been granted to her, to sell thereal estate of which he died seised, in the city of Mobile , for the payment of his debts, the estatebeing insolvent: a deed made in pursuance of a sale of the premises, under the act of assembly and inconformity to the provisions thereof; and also the record of certain proceedings in the supreme courtof Massachusetts , wherein a license was given to the administratrix to make a deed, in pursuance of thetitle bond to Brown, and the deed, made under this authority. The questions which arose in the case,and on which the court decided, were : First, whether the act of the legislature of Alabama , authoriz-ing the sale of the estate of Holman, was constitutional and valid. Second, whether the proceedingsin the supreme court of Massachusetts were operative, and authorized the administratrix to convey thetitle. Third, whether a volume of state papers, published under the authority of Congress , was evidence.Fourth, whether the lessors of the plaintiff below had established a legal title. Fifth, whether thedefendants in the circuit court had not established a title in themselves, independent of and adverse tothe title they had derived under Oliver Holman. The act of Congress of May 26, 1824, relinquishedthe rights of the United States , whatever they were, in the lot in question, to the proprietor of thefcont lot. Watkins v. Holman et al., 16 Peters, 25.