United States v. Hughes (54 U.S. 4)

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search


United States v. Hughes (54 U.S. 4)
by Samuel Nelson
Syllabus
697867United States v. Hughes (54 U.S. 4) — SyllabusSamuel Nelson
Court Documents

United States Supreme Court

54 U.S. 4

United States  v.  Hughes

THIS was a land case, arising under the acts of 1824 and 1844, and came up by appeal from the District Court of the United States for Louisiana.

The parties were the same as in the preceding case.

The petition in this case was filed in the District Court, for the Eastern District of Louisiana, on the 16th of June, 1846.

The petitioner, Hughes, claims under a grant alleged to have been made by Governor Gayoso to Andr e Martin, on the 10th of October, 1798, of a tract of land of twenty-eight arpents front, with a depth of one hundred arpents, situated on the west bank of the Atchafalaya, about one league above where the trace or road from Opelousas to Point Coup ee crosses the said river. The petitioner alleges further, that said Martin took immediate possession, &c., and that the board of commissioners made a favorable report on the claim in the year 1840, but that Congress never acted on it, and that he holds a title to one thousand arpents thereof, &c. He thereupon prays that his title may be decreed to be good.

The answer of the United States is a general denial of the allegations of the petition.

The evidence of the original title is the petition of Andr e Martin to the governor for the said tract of land, and the governor's decree thereon, signed by him in these words: 'Granted forever, that he may establish it,' and dated 'New Orleans, October 10th, 1798.'

Hughes claimed title under a deed from certain persons who represented themselves to be the heirs of Martin, dated 14th of July, 1848.

The District Court decided in favor of the petitioner, and the United States appealed.

It was argued by Mr. Crittenden, (Attorney-General,) for the United States, and by Messrs. Janin and Taylor for the appellee.

Mr. Justice NELSON delivered the opinion of the court.

Notes

[edit]

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).

Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse