Source: http://supreme.nolo.com/us/203/408/case.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 06:30:27+00:00

Document:
Section 6 of the Act of March 3, 1891, 26 Stat. 826, recognizes that there are exceptions other than those enumerated therein in which appeals to this Court at that time provided for by law were saved, and this applies to the appeal by the United States under § 11 of the Act of June 22, 1860, 12 Stat. 87, from adverse decisions of the district court of the United States in cases to establish land titles in Florida.
The provision in § 3 of the Act of June 22, 1860, that no claims for lands in Florida could be presented to the district court of the United States that had been theretofore presented before any board of commissioners or other public officers acting under authority of Congress and rejected as being fraudulent held to bar a claim which had been presented to a judge of the Superior Court of Florida under the Act of May 23, 1828, 4 Stat. 284, and by him refused and rejected on the ground of an unwarranted alteration of the register of the grant in a particular material to its validity.
This is a petition to establish title by a grant of about 1,850,000 acres of land in Florida, brought in the district court under the Act of June 22, 1860, c. 188, § 11, 12 Stat. 85, 87, extended by Act of June 10, 1872, c. 421, 17 Stat. 378, for three years from the last date. The petitioners had a decree in the district court, and the United States appealed to this Court under the above mentioned § 11.
where it is "otherwise provided by law." These words must be taken to refer to existing provisions, and not to be merely a futile permission to future legislatures to make a change. They do not save every existing provision, of course, or the act would fail of its purpose. But they save some. There is no case to which they can apply more clearly than one in which, by reason of its interest, the United States has manifested its will to submit to no judgment not sanctioned by its highest court. The language of § 11 is not the usual permission to appeal, such as existed in the Act of March 3, 1851, c. 41, §§ 9, 10, 9 Stat. 632, 633, referred to in Gwin v. United States, 184 U. S. 669. See also Act of August 31, 1852, c. 108, § 12, 10 Stat. 99. It bears the unusual form of a positive requirement. "If the decree be against the United States, an appeal shall be entered to the Supreme Court of the United States." This is a provision based on a specific policy with regard to a certain class of claims. It is not a matter of general principle, but a special trust. See also Act of May 23, 1828, c. 70, § 9, 4 Stat. 284, 286; May 26, 1824, c. 173, § 9, 4 Stat. 55. It stands on the same ground of peculiar importance that is the foundation of the express grant of certain direct appeals in § 5 of the act of 1891. Therefore, without considering whether the case at bar falls within the other exceptions, we are of opinion that the jurisdiction of this Court given by § 11 of the act of 1860 remains unchanged.
by which the grant was alleged to have been made to John Forbes & Company, a partnership consisting of Forbes, James Innerarity, and John Innerarity, and the Innerarity heirs were joined as parties. The rights of the United States, especially under the statute of limitations, were saved, and one question argued is whether this amendment could be allowed when the time for bringing suit under the act of 1860 had expired. We shall not find it necessary to discuss this question, and shall assume, for the purposes of decision, that the amendment properly was allowed. United States v. Morant, 123 U. S. 335, 123 U. S. 343. We shall assume that the proceeding is to establish the claim and appropriate the land to it, rather than to determine in detail the present holders of the claim. See Butler v. Goreley, 146 U. S. 308, 146 U. S. 310; 147 Mass. 8, 12; Pam-To-Pee v. United States, 187 U. S. 371, 187 U. S. 379-380.
although filed, was not formally allowed before the hearing, and after the hearing, the United States filed a suggestion that it had been treated as followed, and that an order should be made nunc pro tunc that the amendment had been allowed. Thereupon, the order suggested was made, and an additional answer was filed, setting up the treaty and the limitation in the statutes. We do not perceive that the United States, by its course, lost its right to maintain that the amendment set up a new cause of action, which was barred by the limitation fixed by the statutes on the matter, and it urges that defense. Union Pacific Ry. Co. v. Wyler, 158 U. S. 285, 158 U. S. 298.
It has been decided that a decree upon a bill to have a patent declared void as forfeited under an act of Congress was a bar to a subsequent bill for the same purpose upon the different ground that the land was excepted from the grant as an Indian reservation. United States v. California & Oregon Land Co., 192 U. S. 355. In that case, it was intimated that, in general, a judgment is a bar to a second attempt to reach the same result by a different medium concludendi. But, while such a decision might be persuasive on the question whether the cause of action is the same or different for the purposes of amendment, it has been decided that an amendment could not be allowed in a Missouri district, changing the ground of recovery from the common law to the common law as modified by a Kansas statute, which did away with the defense that the negligence complained of was that of a fellow servant, in actions against railroads. Union Pacific Ry. Co. v. Wyler, 158 U. S. 285. In the present case, the change is a change in the allegations of fact, and was most material, because it necessarily was followed by a direct facing about with regard to the law. We shall not dispose of the case on this ground, but we think it proper to say that the difficulties in the way of upholding this amendment under the last-mentioned decision have not been removed from our minds.
"who claim any lands lying within the States of Florida, Louisiana, or Missouri by virtue of grant. . . . emanating from any foreign government, bearing date prior to the cession to the United States of the territory out of which said states were formed, or during the period when any such government claimed sovereignty or had the actual possession of the district or territory in which the lands so claimed are situated."
"or where such title was created and perfected during the period while the foreign governments from which it emanated claimed sovereignty over, or had the actual possession of, such territory."
The petitioners rely upon the words of the act and upon United States v. Morant, 123 U. S. 335. That case involved lands in Florida, lying, like the present, east of the River Perdido, of which the grant was made before January 24, 1818, but the survey was not completed until afterwards. The Court, while intimating that such a grant well might have been held to be saved by the treaty, pointed out that the treaty was not signed until February 22, 1819, or possession taken until July 1822, and held that the case was within the act.
is to be found in United States v. Lynde, 11 Wall. 632. In the light of that history and in view of the alternative ground of decision kept open in United States v. Morant, if there are no other possible distinctions between that case and this, we also shall leave it open whether the intimation in that case is right, or whether the same justice was more accurate when he said, even with regard to grants of land in the disputed territory, that the intention of the act was to validate them, "subject, of course, to the express exceptions of the treaty of 1819 and the supplementary declaration of the King of Spain finally annexed thereto." United States v. Lynde, 11 Wall. 632, 78 U. S. 646-647. See McMicken v. United States, 97 U. S. 204, 97 U. S. 208-209; United States v. Clamorgan, 101 U. S. 822, 101 U. S. 825-826 ("which passed by the Louisiana purchase," in 25 L.Ed. 836).
"Provided, that in no case shall such commissioners embrace in said classes number one and number two any claim which has been heretofore presented for confirmation before any board of commissioners, or other public officers acting under authority of Congress, and rejected as being fraudulent, or procured or maintained by fraudulent or improper means."
We are of opinion that this proviso excludes the petitioners, for the reasons which we proceed to state.
trial, the prayer for confirmation of the title was "refused and rejected" for the reasons set forth in an opinion which is in the record before us. The general ground was the unwarranted alteration of the registro, which we have mentioned above. The judge was careful not to implicate the public officer, remarking that it would be unjust, when he was not a party and had no opportunity of defense. He also stated that it was not intended to implicate the parties in interest. But he pointed out that the inducement for an alteration of the registro a year or two after it was made, when the time became essential in consequence of the treaty, was obvious, and as plainly intimated that he considered the alteration fraudulent, as he could without saying so in words. He simply avoided finding by whom the alteration was made. He quoted the Curia Filipica for the invalidity of a public instrument which does not authenticate alterations by a salvado, and he concluded that the claimants had no legal grant prior to January 24, 1818. He relied upon the absence of a salvado, no doubt, but only as one of the grounds for deciding that the alterations were made without authority of law, and as leading to the further consequence that the instrument was void.
to were judges of a territorial court established by the acts of March 30, 1822, c. 13, § 6, 3 Stat. 654, and March 3, 1823, c. 28, § 7, 3 Stat. 750. They were not district judges, and there was a certain ambiguity in their standing which was under discussion when the act of 1828 was passed, and has been discussed since. American Ins. Co. v. 356 Bales of Cotton, 1 Pet. 511; McAllister v. United States, 141 U. S. 174. It was most natural to use cautious words, but there was no other public officer which the act of 1860 is likely to have had in mind. No further argument seems necessary to justify the conclusion that these judges were embraced within the actual, as well as the literal, meaning of the words used.
follow from the mere fact of alteration. Had there been a salvado, it might have been valid. He could not come to his conclusion without some definite ground.
Moreover, while it is true that the limitation in § 6 of the act of 1828 in form provides that the act shall not be taken to authorize the judge to take cognizance of any claim annulled by the treaty, etc., in substance it is addressed to maintaining the invalidity of the excluded claims. The jurisdiction of the judge was no different from what it would have been if the proviso had declared that nothing in the act should be taken to validate or to authorize the recognition of any claim which the treaty declared void. We are of opinion that the judge had authority to find the claim to be fraudulent and maintained by improper means.
of Cuba to convey on behalf of the King. Therefore, it is our opinion that the claim is barred by the decree, even if it could escape from the other objections upon which we have found it unnecessary to pass.

References: § 11
 § 3
 § 11
 § 11
 § 11
 v. 
 § 12
 § 9
 § 9
 § 5
 § 11
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 6
 § 7
 v. 
 v. 
 § 6