Shaffer v. Scudday.
Upon this view of the subject, it would be useless to grant a rule to show cause; for if the Territorial court made a return stating what they had done, in the precise form in which the sentence of dismissal now appears in the papers exhibited by the relator, a peremptory mandamus could not issue to restore him to the office he has lost.
The motion must therefore be overruled.
William A. Shaffer, Plaintiff in Error, v. James A. Scudday.
In 1841, Congress granted to the State of Louisiana 500,000 acres of land, for the purposes of internal improvement, and in 1849 granted also the whole of the swamp and overflowed lands which may be found unfit for cultivating.
In both cases, patents were to be issued to individuals under State authority.
In a case of conflict between two claimants, under patents granted by the State of Louisiana, this court has no jurisdiction, under the 25th section of the judiciary act, to review the judgment of the Supreme Court of Louisiana, given in favor of one of the claimants.
This case was brought up from the Supreme Court of Louisiana by a writ of error issued under the 25th section of the judiciary act.
The case is fully stated in the opinion of the court.
It was argued Mr. Benjamin for the plaintiff in error, and Mr. Taylor for the defendant.
Upon the question of jurisdiction, Mr. Benjamin’s point was as follows:
The Supreme Court of Louisiana decided, by a decree reversing the judgment of the District Court, that the Secretary of the Interior had no authority to make the decision revoking Scudday’s location, and held his title superior to Shaffer’s, who claimed under an entry made on the authority of the Secretary’s decision.
The case is therefore before the court under that clause of the 25th section of the judiciary act which empowers it to take appellate jurisdiction from the highest State courts, where “is drawn in question the validity of an authority exercised under the United States, and the decision is against the validity,” and is fully within the principles decided in Chouteau v. Eckhart, 2 Howard, 344.
The sole question in the cause, then, is, whether the Secretary had authority to decide, and did rightly decide, that Scudday’s location was null, and must be revoked.
This is hardly an open question in this court.
The 8th section of the act of 1841, under which Scudday claims, directs the locations to be made on “any public land,
