Iowa capitol reporter. [volume] (Iowa City, Iowa) 1841-1855, 1853-05-11
Title to MOntrose Settled

A suit which has been pending in the United
States Court for several years. involving thu
title to the section of land upon which tn,
town of Montrose is located, was recently de
cided by the Supreme Court of the United
States.
Edward Brooks, Esq, one of the successful
parties in the suit has furnished US the opinion
ofthe Court, delivered by Judge Catron. The
suit was brought by Reddicks' heirs upon
patent from the United States for Spanish
grant made half century ago. The opinion
states the evidence establishing the title con
sisting Of a permit from the Spanish govern
ment to Louis Honorie Treason in 1899 te
establish himself at the head of the Rapids
He did SO establish himself made valuable i'm
p'ovements, and set out an orchard and re-
NAMED there till 1905. Ho"orie assigned to
Thos F Reddrick, whose heirs are the plain.
tiffs in this suit. Under acts Of Congress es.
pecially the act Of April goth, 1916. this grant
Of GAO acres was confirmed.
The New York company claimed title under
the reservation to the Half Breeds of the Sac
and Fox Indians.
The Court held, however, tn At it had been
the universal practice of tho Spanish govern.
ment to make such grants to individuals estab.
fishing themselves in the Indian country. and
that our government had uniformly confirmed
such grants. And of this the ad been no
complaint on the part Of tho FANS. nor do
they or the Half Breeds con- dain in this
case.
The opinion concludes: eve concur with
the opinion of Mr.. Attorney General Grundy,
in his report of 1889 on Reddrick's title, to
the Secretary of the Treasury, Opinions of
Atty. Gen. ls30.) that it must be presumed
that the Indians had both acknowledge and as,
sented to Honorie's claim and We are further
more of opinion, that the Indian tribes, and
the half breeds, who claim under them, must
be held to knowledge and to consent that
Honorie took and held rightful possession,
from the fact Of his open and notorious actual
occupancy and holding for himself, in their
midst This is the settled rule in other cases
The reasons are quite as strong. and the ru lie
quite as necessary in its application here. as
49, ." 'AS So"S VI A|obuVs III Wv
How $3.50 where we enforced the rule. We
are therefore of opinion that the supposed In
dian right of occupancy did not affect the con-
frmation by Congress in this case, and that
the remark Of the Recorder, eff Indian rights
extinguished,' was surplusage, and which re-
mark Congress properly disregarded
That the confirmation of 1916 carried the
title with it, if the Confirmation was valid has
so often been decided by this court, that it is not
open to discussion. nor is it disputed here on
behalf of The defendants below. The confirm.
ing act of 1916, however. ordered that patent
should issue according to survey afterwards
to be made, in all cases confirmed by the act
This has been done. The patent recites the
necessary confirmation with the patent, and
gives date to it by relation, as a legal title
from the Goth Of April, 1916, according to the
boundaries set forth in the patent; and as this
ruling covers all the constructions tina: were
wen in the court below, and all such as We're
ed, We ordered that the Judgment be af
Miners Express.