Source: https://www.legalcrystal.com/case/82059/gibson-vs-chouteau
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 00:39:02+00:00

Document:
In 1812, a large part of the land in the County of New Madrid was injured by earthquakes, and in 1815 Congress passed an act for the relief of parties who had thus suffered. [ Footnote 1 ] By this act, persons whose lands had been materially injured were authorized to locate a like quantity of land on any of the public lands in the Territory of Missouri, the sale of which was authorized by law. And it was made the duty of the recorder of land titles in the territory, when it appeared to him from the oath or affirmation of a competent witness or witnesses that any person was entitled to a tract of land under the provisions of the act, to issue to him a certificate to that effect. On this certificate, upon the application of the claimant, a location was to be made by the principal deputy surveyor of the territory, who was required to cause the location to be surveyed and a plat of the same to be returned to the recorder with a notice designating the tract located and the name of the claimant.
The defendants also relied upon a deed of Samuel McRee and wife, [ Footnote 2 ] executed in 1838, contending that by operation of the deed under the statutes of Missouri, the equitable title which these grantors had subsequently acquired to the land and also the legal title conveyed by the patent to Mrs. McRee enured to the benefit of the defendants; but the supreme court held that the deed only had the effect of a quitclaim of an existing interest, and did not affect any subsequently acquired title.
The rulings of the state court upon these grounds were not open to review in this Court, as they involved no questions of federal jurisdiction. But it also appeared in evidence that the defendants, previous to the issue of the patent, had been in the possession of the demanded premises more than ten years, the period prescribed by the statute of Missouri within which actions for the recovery of real property must be brought. By the statutes of the state, the action of ejectment will lie on certain equitable titles. It may be maintained on a New Madrid location against any person not having a better title. [ Footnote 3 ] The defendants therefore contended that the statute of limitation, which had run against the equitable title, created by the location of the O'Carroll claim, was also a bar to the present action founded upon the legal title, acquired by the patent of the United States.
"in making this circuit, necessarily runs around the period of the statute bar, and the action founded upon this new right is met by the statute on its way, and cut off with that which existed before. [ Footnote 6 ]"
In the federal courts, where the distinction between legal and equitable proceedings is strictly maintained and remedies afforded by law and equity are separately pursued, the action of ejectment can only be sustained upon the possession by the plaintiff of the legal title. For the enforcement of equitable rights, however clear, distinct equitable proceedings must be instituted. The patent is the instrument which, under the laws of Congress, passes the title of the United States. It is the government conveyance. If other parties possess equities superior to those of the patentee, upon which the patent issued, a court of equity will, upon proper proceedings, enforce such equities by compelling a transfer of the legal title, or enjoining its enforcement, or cancelling the patent. [ Footnote 8 ] But in the action of ejectment in the federal courts, the legal title must prevail, and the patent, when regular on its face, is conclusive evidence of that title.
Stephenson v. Smith, 7 Mo. 610; Barry v. Gamble, 8 id. 881; Cunningham v. Ashley, 14 How. 377; Lindsey v. Hawes, 2 Black 554; Stark v. Starrs, 6 Wall. 402; Johnson v. Towsley, supra, p. 80 U. S. 72 .

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