THE UNITED STATES, APPELLANTS
v.
CHARLES SETON, APPELLEE
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.
The United States challenged a Florida court's confirmation of Charles Seton's land claim for sixteen thousand acres granted by the territorial governor in 1816 on the condition that Seton establish a water saw-mill on the property. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decree, holding that Seton had valid title to 520 acres at the location specified in the grant and to 15,480 additional acres of vacant land adjoining that survey, but rejected his claim to the 15,630 acres surveyed at a different location.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr Justice Baldwin delivered, the opinion of the Court.
•This is an appeal from the decree of the judge of the superior court for the eastern district of Florida; confirming the claim of the appellee to sixteen thousand acres of land, pursuant to the acts of congress for the adjustment of land claims in Florida.
In-the court below the petition was in due form as prescribed by law, presenting a proper case for the exercise of jurisdiction by the court.
The claim of the petitioner was founded on his application to the governor of East Florida for a grant of sixteen thousand acres of land, for the purpose of erecting a water saw-mill thereon and the supply of limber therefor; which was'granted by the governor, in consideration of the benefits which, would thereby redound to', .the province. The grant was made the 16th of May 1816, but with thi precise condition, “ that until he shall establish said mill, this con-' cession shall be considered as not made, and without any value or effect until that event takes place.” The mill was built in -1817, pursuant to this condition, and in due performance thereof. On the 16th of May 1816, a survey of five hundred and twenty acres was made at the place called for by the petition and grant; -another survey of theresidue of sixteen thousand acres was surveyed at another place on the. 16th of November 1816; the first survey was declared valid By the -court below, the second was rejected. . The claim was adjudged valid, and the survey of the residue of the land directed to be made at the place called for in the giant. On-an inspection of the whole record, we are of opinion that the title of the petitioner is valid to the five hundred and twenty acres surveyed at the place called for by the grant, and not valid as to the survey of fifteen thousand six hundred and thirty acres; butthat his title is valid to fifteen thousand four hundred and eighty acres of vacant land which he has a right to have ' surveyed, adjoining the' said survey of five hundred and twenty acres, according to the decree of the court below. Their decree is, therefore, affirmed.
This cause came on. to be heard on the transcript of the record from the superior court for the district of East 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 for the district of East Florida in this cause be, and the saíne is hereby-affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Tiglao v. Insular Gov't of the Philippine Islands, 215 U.S. 410 (U.S. 1910)
-
The United States v. Breward, 16 Pet. 143 (U.S. 1842)
-
José Argote Villalobos v. The United States, 10 How. 541 (U.S. 1850)