THE UNITED STATES, APPELLANTS
v.
ANTONIO HUERTAS
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Antonio Huertas sought confirmation of a land grant for ten thousand acres in East Florida, originally issued by Governor Kindelan in 1813 with restrictions on alienation and later confirmed with complete title by Governor Coppinger in 1816. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's confirmation of Huertas's claim, rejecting an argument that the surveyed boundaries did not precisely match the original grant description, finding that the testimony supported identity between the survey and the grant and that the objection should have been raised earlier in the proceedings.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr Chief Justice Marshall delivered the opinion of the Court.
The appellee had obtained a concession for ten thousand acres of land, from governor Kindelan, in March 1813, The petitioner, in his application to the governor, sets forth many and great services rendered to the government, in the course of which he had sustained considerable loss, in the last insurrection. He also states that he has ten children, and fourteen slaves.
Governor Kindelan, in his decree making the concession, states his own knowledge of the facts set forth in the petition, but grants the ten thousand acres, with the precise condition to use the same for the purpose of raising cattle, “ without having the faculty of alienating the said tract, without the knowledge of this government.”
On the 20th of July 1816, governor Coppinger granted a complete title to this land. His grant recites the decree made by governor Kindelan, and the boundaries of the land. This claim was laid before the board of commissioners, and recommended, for confirmation. Don Antonio Huertas presented his petition to the court for the district of East Florida, by which tribunal his claim was adjudged valid. It was confirmed to him to the extent, and agreeably to the boundaries as in the grant, and the plat of .the survey of said land, made by Andrew Burgevin, on the 19th of September 1818, and filed in the cause.
No exception can be taken tb this decree, unless the survey made by Burgevin varies from the grant. The description in the survey corresponds, in many respects, with that in the grant; but does not pursue its calls with such regular precision as to prove, completely, their exact identity. But as this objection was not taken in the superior court for the district, where a survey could have been ordered, if deemed necessary; as the testimony in favour of identity greatly preponderates; and as the judge appears to have entertained no doubt that the survey represented truly the land granted: this court thinks the judgment ought not to be reversed on that account. It is, accordingly, affirmed.
This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the superior court for the eastern district of Florida, and was argued by counsel; on consideration whereof it is ordered, adjudged and decreed by this court, that the decree of the said superior court in this cause be, and the same is hereby affirmed, in all respects.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
ZIA v. United States, 168 U.S. 198 (U.S. 1897)…a right to these pueblos to pasture their cattle upon the lands in question — a right somewhat akin to the right of common under the English law, and one which appears to' have been frequently granted under the Spanish law. United States v. Huertas, 8 Pet. 475; United States v. Davenport's Heirs, 15 How. 1. The words of the several documents set forth in the testi-monio certainly favor this interpretation: Thus, in the petition, there is no application for a grant of vacant land for cultivation and pastu…1 / 2
-
The United States v. Heirs, 15 How. 1 (U.S. 1853)