THE UNITED STATES, APPELLANTS,
v.
JOSEPH HUGHES
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.
Joseph Hughes claimed 3,800 arpents of Louisiana land based on a 1798 Spanish colonial grant to André Martin, but the Supreme Court reversed the lower court's decision and dismissed his claim because he failed to take possession or assert any right under the grant for over thirty-eight years, creating a presumption of abandonment, and he also failed to properly prove that the persons conveying the land to him in 1848 were actually Martin's heirs.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice NELSON delivered the opinion of the court.
This is an appeal from a decree of the District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.
The plaintiff, Hughes,, claimed in the court below 3800 arpents of land situate in Louisiana, on the west bank of the Atchafalaya river, about one league above where the road from Opelousas to Point Coupée crosses said river under a concession from Governor Gayoso to one André Martin, 10th of October, 1798.
The petition was presented to the District Court on the 16th of June, 1846, under the act of 17th June, 1844, reviving the .act of 26th May, 1824, praying for a confirmation of the grant in pursuance of the provisions of the act.
Evidence was given of the handwriting of Martin to the application to the governor for the grant of the tract in question • and of .the handwriting of the governor to the grant. '
The plaintiff, also, gave in evidence a conveyance by notarial act under date of 14th of July, 1848, purporting to be made by the heirs of André. Martin, the original grantee, to himself, conveying one thousand arpents, part of the tract of 3800 arpents, to be taken' off the front part of the tract.
Evidence was also given of a notice to the registers and receivers-of the land-office at Opelousas, in Louisiana, of a claim on behalf of the heirs of Martin by their, attorney, f ir .confirmation of the claim under date' 1st of February, 1837. What action took place before these officers on the application, if aiiy, does not appear on the record, nor have we .been referred to any proceedings therein.
There is no evidence that possession was ever taken of the land by the. grantee, or any person claiming under him; nor of any claim of right to the possession; or of any right or title under the concession, or of the actual existence even of the concession itself, until the application to the register and receiver in 1837, a period of over thirty-eight years from its date.
Nor is there any evidence in the record accounting for the neglect i o take possession, or for the absence of evidence of an assertion of right under the grant, or of even the existence of the grant itself for so long a period of time.
The plaintiff rests his claim exclusively upon the production, arid proof of this incomplete grant by Governor Gayoso-in 1798, of, his title as derived from the grantee in 1848, and of the application to. the officers of the land-office at Opelousas in 1837,
We have already held, in a previous case of this plaintiff and the United States, that the neglect-to take possession, and the absence of any claim under the grant, and-of any evidence even of the existence "of the grant itself, for so long a period of time, afford such a violent presumption of abandonment of the claim, that unless explained to the satisfaction of the court, it is impossible, consistent with any sound principles of law or of equity, to uphold it. We refer to the opinion given in that case ori this point as decisive of the present one.
There-is also an additional objection to a recovery in fhis case, that did -not exist-, in the one referred to. The plaintiff shows no 'title to the land in question. There is no proof in the record that the persons joining in the conveyance to him of the premises in July, 1848^ were the heirs of Martin, the' original grantee. The recital in the instrument is no evidence of the fact. The proper proof should have been furnished of the heirship.
For these reasons we are of opinion that the decree of the court below is erroneous, and should be reversed, and remit the proceedings' to the court below, with directions to dismiss the petition.
Order. This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Louisiana, and was argued by counsel. On consideration whereof, it is now here ordered, adjudged, and decreed by this court, that the decree of the said District Court in this cause be, and the same is hereby reversed and annulled; and that this cause be, and the same is hereby remanded to the said District Court, with directions to dismiss the petition 'of the claimant.