110
of vacancy in the office of the Commissioner of the General LandOffice, or of the absence or sickness of the Commissioner, the dutiesof said office shall devolve upon and be performed, ad interim, by thePrincipal Clerk of the public lands.
Sec. 3. And be it further enacted , That there shall be appointedby the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate , an
In making an entry of land, where mistakes occur which are occasioned by the impracticability ofascertaining the relative positions of the objects called for, the court will correct those mistakes, so as tocarry out the intentions of the locator. Croghan’s lessee Nelson, 3 Howard, 187.
There is no principle of the common law which forbids individuals from associating together to purchaselands from the United States , on joint account, at public sale. Olner v. Pratt, 3 Howard, 333.
Where the purchaser of land from the United States has paid for it, and received a final certificate, itis taxable property, according to the statute of Michigan , although a patent has not been issued. Carrollv. Strafford, 3 Howard, 4-11.
Taxation upon lands so held is not a violation of the ordinance of 1787, as “an interference with theprimary disposition of the soil by Congressnor is it a tax on the lands of the United States . The Stateof Michigan could rightfully impose the tax. Ibid.
It was competent to the State to assess and tax lands at their full value, as the absolute property of theholder of the final certificate; and, in default of payment, to sell them as if he owned them in fee. Ibid.
The act of 26th May 1830, chap. 106, providing lor the final settlement of land claims in Florida , mustbe construed to contain the same limitation of time, within which claims are to be presented, as thatprovided by the act of May 23, 1828, chap. 70. The United States v. Marvin, 3 Howard, 620.
Under the act of Congress providing for the subdivision of the public lands, and the instructions of theSecretary of the Treasury, made under the act of 24th April 1820, chap. 49, entitled, An act makingfurther provision for the sale of the public lands, it is the duty of the Surveyor General to leave out afractional section in such a manner as that an entire quarter section may be had, if the fraction will admitof it. Brown’s Lessee v. Clements, 3 Howard, 650.
The Surveyor General has no right to divide a fractional section by arbitrary lines, so as to prevent anentire quarter section from being taken up. Ibid.
The treaty by which Louisiana was ceded to the United States , recognised complete grants, issuedanterior to the cession ; and the decision of a State court against the validity of a grant set up under sucha title, would be subject to reversal by the Supreme Court , under the 25th section of the Judiciary Act.M’Donogh v. Mullander, 3 Howard, 693.
But if the State court only applies the laws of the State to the construction of the grant, it is not adecision against the validity of the grant, and the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction. Ibid.
Congress , in asking a complete grant, recognised them as they stood; and the act of May 11, 1820,chap. 87, confirming such as were recommended for confirmation by the register and receiver, had noreference to any particular surveys. A decision of a State court, therefore, which may be in oppositionto one of these surveys, is not against the validity of a title existing under an act of Congress ; and theSupreme Court has no jurisdiction. Ibid.
By the treaty of 1795 between the United States and Spain, by which Spain admitted that she had notitle to land north of the 31st degree of north latitude, her previous grants of land so situated were ofcourse void. The country thus belonging to Georgia was ceded to the United S'ates in 1802, with areservation that all persons who were actual settlers on the 27th October 1795, should have theirgrants confirmed. Congress provided a board of commissioners to examine these grants, and declaredthat their decision should be final. The Court of Chancery of Mississippi had no right to establish oneof these grants which had not been brought within the provisions of the act of Congress . The claimitself being utterly void, and no power having been conferred by Congress on that court to take orexercise jurisdiction over it, for the purpose of imparting to it legality, the exercise of jurisdiction was amere usurpation of judicial power, and the whole proceeding of the court void. Lessor v. Hickey &Stewart, 3 Howard, 750.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly declared, and in cases too where the instrument contained clearwords of grant, that if the description was vague and indefinite, and there was no official survey to givea certain location, it could give no right of private property in any particular parcel of land, which couldbe maintained in a court of justice. The United States v. King ct al. 3 Howard, 733.
An equitable title is no defence in a suit at law brought by the United States . An imperfect title,derived from Spain before the cession, cannot be supported against a party claiming under a grant fromthe United States . Ibid.
The act of Congress of 29th April 1816, chap. 159, confirming the grant to a league square, restricted itto that quantity, and cannot be construed as confirming the residue. Ibid.
The act of Congress, entitled “An act to create additional land districts in the States of Illinois andMissouri, and the territories north of the State of Illinois, ’’ approved June 26, 1834, chap. 76, does notrequire the President of the United States to cause to be offered for sale the public lands containinglead-mines, situated in the land districts created by the said act. United States v. Gear, 3 Howard, 120.
The lands containing lead-mines in the Indiana territory, or in that part of it made into a new landdistrict by the act of 26th June 1834, chap. 76, are not subject, under any of the pre-emption laws whichhave been passed by Congress , to pre-emption by settlers .upon the public lands. Ibid.
Digging lead-ore from the lead-mines upon the public lands of the United States , is such a waste asentitles the United States to a writ of injunction to restrain it. Ibid.
The United States now hold the public lands in the new States by force of the deeds of cession, andthe statutes connected with them, and not by any municipal sovereignty which it may be supposed theypossess or have received by compact with the new States for that purpose. Pollock’s Lessee v. Hager,3 Howard, 212.
The shores of navigable rivers, and the soil under them, were not granted to the United States , butwere reserved to the States respectively ; and the new States have the same rights, sovereignty andjurisdiction over this subject, as the original States. Ibid.