the treasury. He shall be acquainted with the Spanish language; and before entering on a discharge of the duties of his office, shall take and subscribe an oath, before some authority competent to administer it, that he will “well and truly and faithfully discharge the duties assigned him,
and thereby sanction an abandonment of the grant made by the Spanish authorities. The courts of the United States have no authority to divest the title of the United States in the public lands, and vest it in claimants; however just the claim may be to an equal value for land, the previous grant of which has failed. Ibid.
The decree of the superior court of East Florida, by which a grant for fifty thousand acres of land, made by governor White, the Spanish governor of East Florida, dated July 29, 1802, was rejected, affirmed. Buyck v. The United States, 15 Peters, 215. The land had been granted by governor White, on a petition from the grantee stating his intention to occupy and improve the same with Bengal negroes, and native citizens of the United States; and stating that other grants of the same lands had been made, on condition of settlement, which conditions had not been performed, and such grants were therefore void. The petitioner promised to make the settlement within an early period after the grant. The governor granted the land, referring to the petition, also, with the condition that the grantee should not cede any part of the land, without the consent of the government. No endorsement or settlement was at any time made on the land by the grantee. Held, that the government of the United States were not bound under the Florida treaty, to confirm the grant. Ibid. The description of the portion of the land asked for from the Spanish governor, “lands at Musquito to fifty thousand acres, south and north of said place,” is not sufficiently definite: and from such a description no exception could be made from the public lands acquired by the United States under the Florida treaty. The regulations for granting lands in Florida by the Spanish authorities, required that grants should be made in a certain place: and there were no floating rights of survey out of the place designated in the grant; unless when the land granted could not be got there in its exact quantity, and an equivalent was provided for. Ibid. The laws and ordinances of the government of Spain in relation to grants of land by the Spanish government,must be of universal application in the construction of grants. It is essential to the validity of such grants, that the land granted shall be described so as to be capable of being distinguished from other things of the same kind, or capable of being ascertained by extraneous testimony. Ibid.
The certificate of Don Tomas de Aguilar, secretary of the government and province, of the copy of the grant of the governor, stating the same “to be faithfully drawn from the original in the secretary’s office under his charge,” was legal evidence of the grant; and was properly admitted as such in support of the same. The United States v. Delespine, 15 Peters, 226. A grant of ten thousand two hundred and forty acres of land by the Spanish governor of Florida, which recited among other things, that it was made under a royal order of the king of Spain, of 29th March, 1815, and which was not in conformity with the grant, but which was made in the exercise of other powers to grant lands which had been vested in the governor, was not made invalid by the recital of the royal order as the authority for the grant. The grant recited also, that it was made in consideration of military services, and was also in consideration of the surrender of another grant previously made, which surrender had been accepted by the governor. These were sufficient inducements to the grant. Ibid. A claim for lands in East Florida, granted by governor White to to Daniel O’Hara, rejected by the superior court of East Florida, and the decree of that court affirmed. O’Hara v. The United States, 15 Peters, 275. Governor White, on the petition of Daniel O’Hara, soliciting a grant of fifteen thousand acres, made a decree granting “the lands solicited,” “at the place indicated,” “in conformity with the number of workers which he may have to cultivate them, the corresponding number of acres may be surveyed to him,” “and that he will take possession of the said lands in six months from the date of said grant.” Held, that this is a decree not granting fifteen thousand acres as asked for; but so much of the place where it is asked for as shall be surveyed in conformity with the number of workers the grantee may have to cultivate the land; the quantity could be determined by the regulation of the governor, made the month after the grant, and determining the quantity of land to be surveyed according to the number of persons in the family of the grantee, slaves included. That the grant was made before the date of the regulation, makes no difference. Ibid. No settlement was made on the lands claimed under the grant. The building of a house on the land is but evidence of an intention to make a settlement, but was not a settlement; which required the removal of persons or workers to the land, and cultivating it. Ibid. No claim for the land can be sustained under a grant, or confirmation of a prior grant, made by a decree of governor Coppinger in 1819, as the same was substantially a violation of the treaty with Spain, which confirms only grants made before the 24th January, 1818. The prior grant to O’Hara having become void by the non-performance of the conditions annexed to it, the decree of governor Coppinger, in 1819, was an attempt to make a new grant. Ibid. If the grant were not void from the non-performance of the conditions of settlement annexed to it, the omission to have the land surveyed, and returned to the proper office, would make it void, unless the grantee had made a settlement; in which event, a survey would be presumed. The grant was made in the “district of Nassau,” &c. This was an indefinite description of the land, as was held in Buyck v. The United States, decided at this term. A concession of lands, by the council at St. Augustine, was not authorized by the laws of Spain, relative to the granting and confirming land titles. The United States v. Delespine, 15 Peters, 319. When a grant of lands is indefinite as to its location, or so uncertain as to the place where the lands granted are intended to be surveyed, as to make it impossible to make a survey under the terms of the grant with certainty, the grant will not be confirmed. Ibid. The act of Congress of 26th May, 1830, requires that all claims to land which have been presented to