John McLean

Name: Lessee of Lattimer v. Poteet — Opinion of the Court
Author: John McLean

Lessee of Lattimer v. Poteet — Opinion of the Court

Summary

“Lessee of Lattimer v. Poteet — Opinion of the Court”, is a work by John McLean. It explores elements such as Holston, treaty and North Carolina.

Quotes from Lessee of Lattimer v. Poteet — Opinion of the Court (John McLean)

John McLean, Lessee of Lattimer v. Poteet — Opinion of the Court

“ From personal position, I happen to know, through those who lived at that date, and by reputation, that it was run to fix some line beyond which it was intended the white population should not be permitted to obtrude, further than they had done at the time the line was marked, extending to a few settlers on Nine Mile creek. But that Hawkins' line was run as a conclusive boundary in execution of the treaty of Holston, of 1791, or for any further purpose than to hold the whites in check, for the sake of peace and convenience, it is impossible to affirm as a matter of history ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

John McLean, Lessee of Lattimer v. Poteet — Opinion of the Court

“ The answer to this is, that the Tellico treaty does not purport to alter the boundary of the Holston treaty, but by the acts of the parties, this boundary is recognised. Not that a new boundary was substituted, but that the old one was substantially designated.
Will any one deny that the parties to the treaty are competent to determine any dispute respecting its limits. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

John McLean, Lessee of Lattimer v. Poteet — Opinion of the Court

“ Of this no doubt can exist; and it is only necessary to extend Hawkins' line from the top of the Great Iron mountain eastward to the point where it shall intersect a line run north from the place where the South Carolina Indian boundary strikes the southern boundary of North Carolina. This, we feel authorized to say, from the evidence before us, constitutes the boundary of the Holston treaty. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

John McLean, Lessee of Lattimer v. Poteet — Opinion of the Court

“ And, from the language of the third article, it is clear, that the parties did not intend to establish an entirely new boundary, but to make such alterations of the Holston boundary as should secure the object of the United States.
The land lying southwest of the Holston boundary belonged to the Indians; and it was a part of this land that was purchased by the treaty of Tellico. Of course, this purchase extended from the Holston treaty line southerly. For no one can suppose that a strip of Indian land would be left between the treaty lines of Holston and Tellico. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

John McLean, Lessee of Lattimer v. Poteet — Opinion of the Court

“ This showed the necessity of turning the direction more to the east and west; and it is our opinion that a line extended from the point of the ridge aforesaid south sixty degrees east to Chilhowee mountain, again from the point north sixty degrees west, will form the true line from Chilhowee mountain to Clinch, between the United States and the Cherokees, according to the treaty of Holston. The more fully to elucidate this report, we present you with a map, which we believe is nearly correct, on which both the lines are laid down.'
This line left several white settlers within the Indian lands. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

John McLean, Lessee of Lattimer v. Poteet — Opinion of the Court

“ The Hopewell treaty line, in running a southerly course, strikes the northern boundary of North Carolina, near Nalichuchey, and extends south to the North Carolina line, and thence to the South Carolina Indian boundary. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

John McLean, Lessee of Lattimer v. Poteet — Opinion of the Court

“ And we think there was no error in refusing to give the third, fourth, and fifth instructions prayed by the plaintiffs' counsel. Nor do we perceive any error of which the plaintiffs can complain, in the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth instructions given by the Circuit Court, on the prayer of the defendant. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

John McLean, Lessee of Lattimer v. Poteet — Opinion of the Court

“ It was admitted that the title, if any, had descended to the lessors of the plaintiff, and that, at the commencement of the action, the defendant was in possession; and also, that the land was within the limits of the territory described in the fifth section of the act of North Carolina, 1783, entitled an act for opening the land office for the redemption of specie and other certificates, &c. ”

John McLean

Summary

Quotes from Lessee of Lattimer v. Poteet — Opinion of the Court (John McLean)

Common terms

Similar works

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature