John Catron

Name: Lessieur v. Price — Opinion of the Court
Author: John Catron

Lessieur v. Price — Opinion of the Court

Summary

“Lessieur v. Price — Opinion of the Court”, is a work by John Catron. It explores elements such as the United States, New Madrid and location.

Quotes from Lessieur v. Price — Opinion of the Court (John Catron)

John Catron, Lessieur v. Price — Opinion of the Court

“ The act of Congress for the relief of the inhabitants of New Madrid county, whose lands had been materially injured by earthquakes, provides that, where locations are made under the act, the title of the individual to the land injured shall revert to, and become absolutely vested in, the United States. Instead, therefore, of its being a pure donation on the part of the government, it was a proffered barter or exchange of lands by legislative enactment. Where the value of the land in New Madrid had been entirely destroyed, it might be regarded as a donation of other land to the individual owner ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

John Catron, Lessieur v. Price — Opinion of the Court

“ Whenever two titles have emanated from government, it becomes necessary to inquire which is the elder title, as that one must prevail. 1 Pet., 668; 13 Id., 436.
5. The plaintiffs insist that their title began to exist at the date of the entry, or notice of location, June 2, 1821; and that the patent thereon, issued to Delisle, or his legal representatives, relates back to the said entry, and overreaches any other title, taking its inception in the mean time from the government of the United States. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

John Catron, Lessieur v. Price — Opinion of the Court

“ It was not done, however, to the end of furnishing evidence of title to the claimant, but to have evidence there to show that the land was appropriated according to the New Madrid act, and for the convenience of the Surveyor's department. The plain meaning of the law is as above stated, nor can its import be changed by the practice pursued in the Surveyor's office: there the claimant could not go for record evidence of his location, binding the United States to an exchange of lands. He could only refer to the Recorder's office. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

John Catron, Lessieur v. Price — Opinion of the Court

“ If it shall be considered by the court that, although the lands of Delisle, in lieu of which his New Madrid certificate was issued, were destroyed, and the grant was consequently pure donation to him, that nevertheless, no title vested in him till his deed to Dawson and Lessieur, in 1824, still the plaintiffs were entitled to recover, the defendant not having shown any title in himself. A title springing up in Delisle in 1842, was in time to appropriate the land. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

John Catron, Lessieur v. Price — Opinion of the Court

“ It was to consist of a plat of survey, and a certificate describing the land, with the name of the claimant for whom the location by survey was made. This return the Recorder had to examine, pass upon, and record; if the location and survey had been properly made, then the United States assented to the exchange, and not until then.
The danger of allowing a claimant to locate a floating war-want at his own discretion, threatened the country with evils that had afflicted some of the elder states. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

John Catron, Lessieur v. Price — Opinion of the Court

“ Both parties claimed to derive title from the United States. The cause was submitted to the Circuit Court of Cole County, as a jury, and the judgment being for the defendant, the plaintiffs carried it to the Supreme Court of Missouri, where the judgment of the court below was affirmed by a divided court; one judge not sitting, one being for affirming the judgment, and one dissenting. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

John Catron, Lessieur v. Price — Opinion of the Court

“ Because a slip, two miles in length, was taken off of two entire sections,' thus making them fractional, and breaking up the legal subdivisions.
4. By substituting quantity for metes and bounds, when by the laws of the land the metes and bounds of four entire sections were all the state was entitled to receive, whether they contained 2,566 acres or not. ”

John Catron

Summary

Quotes from Lessieur v. Price — Opinion of the Court (John Catron)

Common terms

Similar works

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature