Summary

Portrait of John Catron John Catron Barry v. Gamble — Opinion of the Court

The question, if I have understood the argument made in behalf of the plaintiff in error, is, whether the patent issued to Lafleur is not void, because the survey was made for him at a time when the sale of the land was not authorized by law?
If we turn again to the language of the act, we find that the words upon which most stress is laid-'the sale of which is authorized by law'-are used as descriptive of the land to be located, and have no reference to time.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of John Catron John Catron Barry v. Gamble — Opinion of the Court

If there were, then, classes of lands which, by law, were reserved from sale so that no officer of the government could, without a violation of law, attempt to sell them, and there were other public lands in relation to which the executive of the United States was already intrusted, by law, with the power to direct the survey and sale, so that no farther authority was needed, we have the key to the right understanding of the words employed in the act of 1815.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of John Catron John Catron Barry v. Gamble — Opinion of the Court

We have a man pointing out a portion of unoccupied waste land, as public land, liable to be appropriated by the location of a New Madrid certificate; and after it has been so appropriated and patented by the government, we have a claim set up, by the heirs of that man, under a dormant title, which had been held back, notwithstanding the imperative provisions of these acts of Congress, and stating, on the face of their petition, that it had never been presented to any of the tribunals established for the investigation of such titles.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature