Source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/169/128
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 16:55:04+00:00

Document:
RICHARDSON v. LOUISVILLE & N. R. CO. et al.
W. A. Blount, for plaintiff in error.
Gregory & Smith, for defendants in error.
This was an action of ejectment brought by plaintiff in error in the circuit court of Escambia county, Fla.
'The grant, so far as it relates to the locus in quo, was a mere license to Pintado to use the property in a particular way, and vested in him no sufficient time upon which to recover in ejectment.
'Because said grant, so far as it relates to the locus in quo, was not an exclusive grant of the property occupied by the defendants.
'Because said grant, so far as it relates to the locus in quo, was not within the delegated authority of the officer who attempted to grant the same.
'Because said grant, so far as it relates to the locus in quo, is not one which was validated or recognized by the treaty between the United States and Spain.
The trial court sustained defendants' objections, and excluded the grant, and plaintiff excepted.
The supreme court of Florida affirmed the judgment, and held that the purpose of the grant 'as to the water front therein described was not to grant the land and water as such within the described limits, but the right to use the same, within such limits and to the depth stated below the surface of the soil, for the purpose of constructing wharves and houses for bathing, such right of use being to the exclusion of any similar right of use in any other individuals, and subordinate to the right of the king and the public to construct wharves with municipal or common funds within such limits; also, that while the king of Spain could have made such a grant to Pintado, it would have been contrary to his laws then in force in West Florida, and a case of special exception from their effect; and that Ramirez had no authority to make the grant, and it was void, and vested no title in the grantee.' Richardson v. Sullivan's Ex'rs, 20 South. 815. And see Sullivan v. Richardson, 33 Fla. 1, 14 South. 692, where the case is fully considered on a prior appeal.
On affirming the judgment, the supreme court entered an order to the effect that, in holding the grant void, a claim by plaintiff of a right, title, or privilege under the treaty between the United States and Spain of February 22, 1819, had been disposed of adversely to him; and a writ of error from this court was allowed.
As before stated, defendants objected to the admission of the grant in evidence, on the grounds that, so far as it related to the locus in quo, it 'was a mere license to Pintado to use the property in a particular way, and vested in him no sufficient title on which to recover in ejectment'; and also that the grant 'was not within the delegated authority of the officer who attempted to grant the same.' Thus, the construction of the grant and its validity were presented for consideration as distinct inquiries; and, while the trial court assigned no reasons for its action, the supreme court passed on both questions, and in its first opinion elaborately discussed them.
But, in sustaining the ruling of the trial court in excluding the alleged grant, the supreme court rested its decision on the want of authority to make such a grant as it held this to be. Therefore the contention on behalf of plaintiff in error is that this court necessarily has jurisdiction. As, however, we entirely concur with the state court in the view that the grant was not a grant of title, but of a mere license, easement, or right of use, and no evidence of prior possession was offered, we need not consider whether the grant, as thus correctly construed, was valid or not, for even if valid, the ruling on this record could not have been other than it was. That ruling was so obviously correct that we do not feel constrained to retain the case for further argument. Chanute City v. Trader, 132 U. S. 210, 10 Sup. Ct. 67.
E. B. DEMING, Deming-Gould Company, and Pacific American Fisheries, Plffs. in err., v. CARLISLE PACKING COMPANY.
BOSWELL M. BLYTHE, v. FLORENCE HINCKLEY.
EQUITABLE LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY OF THE UNITED STATES, v. CECIL BROWN, Administrator of the Estate of David B. Smith, Deceased.
TEXAS & NEW ORLEANS RAILROAD COMPANY and Louisiana Western Railroad Company, and Their Surety, the United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company, Plffs. in Err., v. FANNIE MILLER, G. W. Miller, William D. Miller, Dorrace H. Miller, and Fannie Miller, Suing as Next Friend, etc.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.