Samuel Nelson

Name: Bissell v. Penrose — Opinion of the Court
Author: Samuel Nelson

Bissell v. Penrose — Opinion of the Court

Summary

“Bissell v. Penrose — Opinion of the Court”, is a work by Samuel Nelson. It explores elements such as survey, confirmation and location.

Quotes from Bissell v. Penrose — Opinion of the Court (Samuel Nelson)

Samuel Nelson, Bissell v. Penrose — Opinion of the Court

“ It will be perceived that the right to re-locate by the Spanish claimant is confined to the case of an interfering location or purchase of the whole or a part of the tract of land confirmed, omitting altogether to make provision for the case of a confirmation of an unlocated concession or order of survey. If the argument, therefore, is well founded, that these surveys are a nullity, and incapable of giving description and locality to the claim, Congress have not yet provided for one half of them under the act of 1836 ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Samuel Nelson, Bissell v. Penrose — Opinion of the Court

“ If the jury find from the evidence that Rudolph Tillier, under whom the plaintiff in this case claims the land in question, filed his claim with the recorder of land titles, and, as a part of the evidence of his claim, filed two plats of the land claimed, one of which plats would embrace the land now in the defendant's possession, and the other would not embrace that land, then there is no reservation of the land in defendant's possession from sale, which would prevent the location of the land in question, under the certificate in favor of John Brooks, or his legal representatives. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Samuel Nelson, Bissell v. Penrose — Opinion of the Court

“ The argument against the application of the clause to the claim before us is, that the concession to Vasquez, being general and unlocated, giving a right to the eight hundred arpens in no particular part or parcel of land in the public domain, but in any and every part, and the private survey designating and locating the tract being a nullity, and to be disregarded, the premises in question were not, and could not have been, reserved from sale by the filing of this vagrant claim; and hence were open to location under the New Madrid certificate in 1816, at the date of the entry. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Samuel Nelson, Bissell v. Penrose — Opinion of the Court

“ That the effect of the act of the 26th of May, 1824, and the act in revival thereof, passed 24th May, 1828, was not to divest the title of the plaintiff so as to exclude it from the operation of the revival act of the 9th of July, 1832, and that that act must be regarded as a waiver of all penalties and forfeitures, if any such were ever designed by the United States to attach to claims like the one in question. There were hundreds of thousands of acres of land claimed by no higher title than that of a concession and mere order of survey ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Samuel Nelson, Bissell v. Penrose — Opinion of the Court

“ A grant designating some natural object only, such as the head or sources of a river, as the place where the tract should be located. These two classes constituted no inconsiderable portion of the claims filed in the offices of the register and recorder, and afterwards presented before the commissioners. Among the incomplete grants, they probably constituted at least one half of the number. Of the first fifty in the report of the 27th of November, 1833, twenty-eight are of this description; it is fair to presume the same proportion exists throughout. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Samuel Nelson, Bissell v. Penrose — Opinion of the Court

“ What particular land was embraced by the plats originally filed depended upon facts to be proved aliunde, and upon which the identity was to be found by the jury, and not by the court or by the act of the surveyor. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Samuel Nelson, Bissell v. Penrose — Opinion of the Court

“ If anything can be resorted to, other than the decision and the concession to which it refers, for the purpose of determining the legal effect of the grant, it must appear by the transcript laid before Congress, and that cannot be contradicted, altered, or varied by oral evidence. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

Samuel Nelson, Bissell v. Penrose — Opinion of the Court

“ The location, survey, and patent certificates being in other respects regular, vested in John Brooks, or his legal representatives, a title valid against the United States, which was defeasible only by a confirmation of the conflicting claim during the continuance of the reservation. Barry v. Gamble, 3 How., 32; Stoddard v. Chambers, 2 Id., 317 ”

Samuel Nelson

Summary

Quotes from Bissell v. Penrose — Opinion of the Court (Samuel Nelson)

Common terms

Similar works

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature