Case Name: Lessee of William Pollard's heirs, &c., Plaintiffs in error, vs. Gaius Kibbe, Defendant in error
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1840-01
Citations: 14 Pet. 353
Docket Number: 
Parties: Lessee of William Pollard's heirs, &c., Plaintiffs in error, vs. Gaius Kibbe, Defendant in error.
Judges: 
Reporter: United States Reports
Volume: 39
Pages: 353–429

Head Matter:
Lessee of William Pollard's heirs, &c., Plaintiffs in error, vs. Gaius Kibbe, Defendant in error.
Action of ejectment in the state Court of Alabama, for a tot of ground in the city of Mobile. The plaintiff claimed the title to the lot under an act of Congress, and the decision of the state Court was against the right and title so set up and claimed. A writ of error was prosecuted to the Supreme Court of Alabama. It was held that this case was embraced by the twenty-fifth section of the Judiciary Act of 1789, which gives this Court jurisdiction to revise the judgment of the state Court, ir ruch-cases.
The act of Congress under which title was claimeu, being a private act, and for the benefit of the city of Mobile, and certain individuals; it is fair to presume it was passed with reference to the particular claims of individuals, and the situation of the land embraced in the law at the time it was passed.
A lot of ground was granted by the Spanish government of Florida^ in 1802, to Forbes and Company, in the city of Mobile, which was afterwards confirmed by the commissioners of the United States. The lot granted was eighty feet in front, and. three hundred and four feet in depth, bounded on the east by Water street. This, while the Spanish government had possession of the territory, was known as “ a water lot.” In front of the lot Was a lot which, at the time of the grant of the lot to Forbes and Company, was covered by the water of the bay and river of Mobile, the high tide flowing over it; and it was separated’from Forbes and Company’s lot by Water street. It was afterwards, in part, reclaimed by Lewis, who had no title to it, and who was' afterwards driven off by one of the firm of Forbes and Company. A blacksmith’s shop was then put on the lot by him; and Lewis, again, by proceedings at law, obtained posse'ssion of the blacksmith’s shop, it not being his improvement. The improvemerft'was first made in 1823. The Spanish governor,.in 1809, after the Louisiana treaty of 1803, and before the territory west of the Perdido was out of the possession of Spain, granted the lot in; front of the lot owned by Forbes and Company, to William Pollard: but the commissioners of the United States,'appointed after the territory was in the full possession of the United States, refused to confirm the’ same, “ because of the want of improvement and occupation.” ’ In 1824, Congress passed an act, the second section of which gives to those who havé improved them, the lots in Mobile, known under the Spanish government as “ water lots,’’.except when the lofi so improved bad been alienated, and except lots of which the Spanish government had made “ new grants,” or orders of survey, during the time the Spanish government had “ pbwer”to grant the same; in which case, the lot is to belong to the alienee' or the grantee. In 1836., Congress paásed an act for the relief, of William Pollard’s heirs,’ by Which the lot granted by the Spanish government of 1809, was given to the heirs, saving the rights of third persons; and a patent for this lot was issued to the heirs of William Pollard, by the United States, on the 2d of July, 1836. Held, that the lot lying east of the lot granted in 1802, by the Spanish government, to Forbes and Company, did not pass by that grant to Forbes and Company; that the act of Congress of 1824, did not vest the title in the lot east of the lot granted in 1802 in Forbes and Company; and that the heirs of Pollard, under the sScond section- of the act of 1824, which excepted from the grant to the city of Mobile, &c., lots held undeí “ riew grants” from thq Spanish government, and under the act of Congress of 1836, were entitled to the lot granted in 1809, by the Spanish governor to William Pollard.
The term “ new grants,” in its ordinary acceptation, when applied to the same subject or object, is the-opposite of “ old.” But such cannot be its meaning in the.afit of Congress of' 1824. The- term was doubtless used in relation to the existing condition of the territory in which such grants were made. The territory had been ceded to the United States by the Louisiana treaty ; , but, in consequence of a dispute with Spain about the boundary line, had remained in the, possession of'Spain. During this time, Spain continued to issue evidences of ti'tfes 'to lands within the territory in dispute. The term “ new” was very appropriately used as applicable to grants and orders of survey of- this description ; as contradistinguished from those issued before the cession.
The time when the Spanish government had the “ power” to grant lands in the territory, by every reasonable intendment.of the act of Congress of 1.834, must have been so designated with reference to the existing state of the territory, as between the United States and Spain; the right to the territory'being in the United States, and the possession in Spain. The language, “ during the time at which Spain had the power to grant the same,” was, under such circumstances, very appropriately applied to the case. It could with no propriety have- been applied - to the case, if Spain had- full dominion over the territory, by the union of the right and the possession; and, in this view, it is no forced interpretation of the word “ power,” to consider it here used as importing an’ imperfect right, and distinguished from complete lawful authority.
The act of Congress of 35th March, 1813, appointing commissioners to ascertain. the titles and claims to lands on the east side of the Mississippi, and west side of the Perdido, and falling within the cession of France, embraced all claims of this description. It. extended to all claims, by virtue of any grant, order of survey, or other evidence of claim, whatsoever, derived from the French, British, or Spanish governments; and the reports of the commissioners show, that evidence of claims of various descriptions, issued .by Spanish authority,-down to 1-810, come under their examination. And the legislation of Congress shows many laws passed confirming incomplete titles, originating after the date of the treaty between France and Spain, at St. Ildefonso. Such claims are certainly not béyond the reach of Congress to confirm; although it may require a special act of 'Congress-for that purpose. Such is the act of Congress of 3d July, 1836, which confirms the title of William Pollard’s heirs to the lot which is the subject of this suit.
The judgment, of the Supreme Court of- the United States, in a case brought by writ of error to a Court of a state, must be confined to the error alleged in the decision of the state Court, upon the construction of the act of Congress, before the State Court.
IN error to the Supreme Court óf the state of Alabama.
In the Circuit Court for the county of Mobile, state of Alabama, an action of ejectment for a lot of ground situated in the city of Mobile, was instituted by the plaintiffs in error, and was afterwards removed, by change of venue, to the Circuit Court for the county of Baldwin. It was tried before a jury in that Court, and on the trial, the plaintiffs filed a bill of exceptions to the charge of the Court. A ■ verdict and judgment were given for ithe defendant. From'this judgment of the Circuit Court, the plaintiffs prosecuted a writ of error to the Supreme Court of the state of Alábanla; and the judgment of the Circuit Court, in favour of the defendant, was affirmed by the Supreme Court.
Tixe plaintiffs prosecuted tMs writ of error to the Supreme Court of the United States, under the twenty-fifth section of the Judiciary Act of l^.
“ The following is the bill of exceptions filed by the plaintiffs, on the trial of the cause in the Circuit Court of the county of Baldwin.
■ On the trial of this cause, at the above term, the plaintiffs, to maintain the issue on their part, gave in evidence an instrument signed by Cayetano- Perez, written in the Spanish language, a translation of which is hereto annexed, as part,of this bill of exceptions, but which instrument was shown to have been reported against, and rejected, by the commissioners appointed- by-the United States government to investigate and report on such matters, because of the want-of.improvement and occupancy.”
[THE SPANISH GRANT, TRANSLATED.
«Mr. Commandant:
« William Pollard, an inhabitant of the district, before you, with all respect represents: That he has a mill established upon his plantation, and that he often comes to this place with planks and property from if, and that he wishes to have a place propitious or suitable for the landing and safety thereof; and that having found'a vacant piece at the fiver side, between the channel which is called “ John F.orbes and Company’s,” and the wharf at this place, he petitions you to grant said lot on the river bank, to give more facility to his trading; a favour he hopes to obtain of you.
“ Mobile, 11th December, 1809. William Pollard.”
Mobile, 12th December, 1809V
I grant the petitioner the lot or piece of ground he prays for, on the river bank, provided it be vacant. Cayetano Perez.]
' They further, gave in evidence, an act of Congress, passed on the 26th day of May, 1824, entitled an act granting certain lots of ground to the corporation of the city of Mobile, and to certain individuals of said city. They further gave in evidence an adt of Congress, passed July 2d, 1S36, entitled an act for the relief of William Pollard’s heirs. They then gave in evidence -a patent, dated the 14th day of March, 1837*, issued in pursuance of said act of Congress of the 2d of July, 1S36, which patent embraced the premises in question. The plaintiffs further proved that in the year 1813 or 1814, some wreck and drift wood was removed from the place where the premises in question now are, by the hands of William Pollard, the grantee. The defendant gave in evidence a Spanish grant, dated 9th of June, 1802, to John Forbes and Company, for a lot of ground, for eighty feet front on Royal street, with a depth of three hundred and four feet to the east; and bounded .on-the south by’Government street; which grant was "recognised as a perfect title, and so confirmed by act of Congress. Attached to the original grant was a certificate signed by W. Barton, Register, Wm. Barnett, Receiver, P. M.; Attest, John Elliott, Clerk; a copy of which is the following: -
[proceedings of the commissioners
Land Office, Jackson Court House.
Commissioners Deport, Nó. 2; Certificate, No. 3.
In pursuance of the act of Congress, passed, on the 3d of March; 1819, entitled “an act for adjusting the claims to land, and establishing land offices in the district east of the island of Orleans,” wé certify that the claim No. 3, in the report of the commissioners, numbered 2, (claimed by John Forbes and Company, original claimant, Panton Leslie and Company,) is recognised by the said act as valid against airy claim on the part of the .United States, or right derived from the United States; the said claim being for eighty feet in front, and three hundred and four in depth, area 24,320 feet, situate in the town of Mobile, and claimed by virtue 'of Spanish grant executed by J. Y. Morales, and dated 9th of June, 1803.
Given under our hands this 8th day of January, 1S20.
W. Barton, Register.
Wm. Barnett, Receiver. P. M.
Attest, John Elliott, Clerk.]
A map, or diagram, indicating the property claimed, as well as that covered by the above grant,- with other lots, streets, &c., was submitted to the jury, and is to make a part of the bill of exceDtions, by agreement between the counsel of the parties.
According to that map and the proof, the lot sued for is. east of Water street, and also immediately in front of the lot conveyed by the above mentioned grant to John Forbes and Company, and only separated from it by Water street. The proof showed that, previous to 1819, then, and until filled up, as after stated, the lot claimed by plaintiffs, was at ordinary high tide, covered with water, and mainly so at all stages of the water; that the ordinary high water flowed from the east to about' the middle of what is now Water street, as. indicated on the map referred to, between the lot claimed by plaintiffs, and that covered by the grant to John Forbes and Company. It was proved that John Forbes and Company had been in possession of the lot indicated by their deed since the year 1802; and that said lot was known under the Spanish government as a water lot; no lots at that time existing between it and the water.
It was proved that, in the year 1823, no one being then in possession, and the same being under water, Curtis Lewis, without any title, or claim finder title, took possession of, and filled up east of Water street, and from it eighty feet east, and thirty-six or forty feet wide, filling up north of Government street,.and at the corner'of the same, and Water street; that Lewis remained in possession about nine months, when he was ousted in the night by James Innerarity, one of the firm of John Forbes and Companywho caused to be erected a smith shop,'and from whom Lewis, sometime after regained possession by legal process, and retained it till he conveyed the same. Proved, that when said Lewis took possession, Water street at that place could be passed by carts, and was common. •The defendant connected himself, through conveyances for. the premises in controversy, with the said grant to John Forbes and Company, also, with the said Curtis Lewis, also, with the mayor and aldermen of the city of Mobile: from each of which sources his title, if any, was derived by deed.'
It .was- admitted by the parties to the suit, that the premises sued for were between Church street and North Boundary street; this was all the evidence introduced on the trial.
On this evidence, the Court charged the jury, that if the lot conveyed as above, to John Forbes .and'Company, by the deed afore said, was known as a water lot under the Spanish government, and. if the lot claimed by the plaintiffs had been improved at, and previous to the 26th day of May, 1824, and was east of Water street, and. immediately in front of the lot so conveyed to John Forbes and Company, then the lot claimed, passed by the act of Congress of the.,26th' of-May, 1824, to those at that time owning and occupying the lot so as above convéyed to John Forbes and Company.
“ The Court further charged the jury, it was immaterial who made the improvements on the lot on the east side of Water street, being the one in dispute; that by the said acts of Congress, the proprietor of the lot on. the west side of Water street, known as above, was entitled to the lot on the'east*-side of it. To which charges of the Court, the plaintiffs, by their counsel, excepted, and this was sign.ed and .sealed as á bill of exceptions.”
The case was argued by Mr. Test, and Mr. Webster, for the plaintiffs in error; and by Mr. Key, for the appellee.
For the plaintiff in error it was contended, that the charge in the Circuit Court of Baldwin county, was erroneous; and the judgment of the Superior Court of Alabama should be reversed:
1. Because plaintiff had a good title under his original grant, the confirmation thereof by the act of Congress of the 2d July, 1836, and the patent issued in pursuance thereof,
2. The construction put by the judge who tried the cause, on the act of May 26th, 1824, was not the true construction of that .act..
3. The said charge to the jury .was not warranted by the evidence set forth in the said bill of exceptions.
The counsel for the plaintiffs in error stated, that the question in the case was, whether the grant to Forbes and Company, dated 9th June, 1802, which had been confirmed by the commissioners of the United States on the 8th of January, 1820, conveyed the lot in front of the lot of Forbes and Company, which is now claimed by Pollard’s heirs.
• 1. The plaintiffs had a good and valid title to this lot. They rely on the provisions of the act of Congress of 182'6. Thev do not claim as riparian proprietors.
Pollard was in possession of the property, a,s is shown by the act of Congress of 1826; and the patent to him was granted under that law. The patent is the highest evidence of title, and the Court will, not look beyond or behind it.
If the original grant by Governor Cayetano * erez was of no value, yet the act of 1836 gave it life, and made it a legal, valid, and indisputable title, against any equitable title; and the defendants Save nothing but an equitable title. Cited, the act of Congress of the session of 1836, 1837.
The defendants claim under an act of Congress granting certain lots to the city of Mobile. 3 Story’s Laws U. S. 20.71. A proper construction of this law negatives this claim. The law gives a title to what is now called “a water lot;” not to what were called "water lots” by .the Spanish law. -.
Under the Spanish laws, grants were extended into the river; arid no- water lots were granted unless particularly described tó be such, and'so granted. The defendants exhibited no grant,, specially de scribing the lot to be a water lot.
' .The grant of the'lot, by the act of'1836, recognises the lot for which the plaintiffs in error contend,.as a lót undér a "new grant’ of the Spanish.goverUment; and the lot is given to the heirs of Pollard, the lessors of the plaintiffs in error. The defendants claim under the act of Congress of 1824; and the act of 1836 is a legislative construction of that act.
■ The'jurisdiction óf the Court in this case'depends upon the question, whether an act of. Congress has been iriisconstrued by the Supreme Court of Alabama; Has this been so ?
It has been, said that the original grant by the governor of Florida has been treated with scorn, and is of no value. That grants of this description having been for lands within the territory claimed by the United States, under the cession treaty of Louisiana, have always been disregarded. This is not so. Congress- have in more than a thousand instances respected and confirmed such titles.
.In regard to the contest between the United- States and Spain, under the Louisiana treaty,- relative to the lands lying west of the river Perdido, .possession of those lands was not obtained until 1823. The condition-of a country between the time it has been ceded, and the time when it is taken possession of, is determined by the law of nations. The rule of that law is, that nothing is changed until possession is taken of the country.
It is -not admitted -that Congress could, before the United States took possession of the country, pass laws abrogating the established laws of Spain. Governments are of all others the parties on which the laws of the country which may have acquired-the country by treaty, do not operate before they are in possession.
It has often been decided in this Court, that the government which is in possession of a country may make grants. In the case. of .The State of Rhode Island vs. The State of Connecticut, 12 Peters,-748, the Court say, " When a territory is acquired by cession, or even conquest, the rights of the inhabitants td property are respected, and sacred. Grants of land by'a governirient de-facto, of parts of a - disputed territory in its possession, are valid against the state which had the right. 8 Wheat. 509. 12 Wheat. 535. ' 6 Peters, 712. 8 Peters, 445. 9 Peters, 139. 10 Peters, 330. 718,
The act of Congress of 1804, speaks of and relates entirely to past cases. See-act of 26th March, 1804, sec. 14. It declares the titles referred'to in it to have been, and to be, null and void. Land Laws, 500.
There is no objection to the title of the plaintiffs in error, on the ground that it was not confirmed by the commissioners of the United States. Their decision does not disaffirm, the title. After the refusal of the commissioners to allow it, an action, may be brought upon. it.
. 'Was the grant refused by the commissioners because of the provisions of the treaty for the cession of Louisiana ? • The commissioners say it was refused “ because of the want of proof of cultivation and occupation.” Grants made after the treaty have been confirmed in many cases: among them a graht to Forbes and Company.
There was a title in the heirs of Pollard under the grant, but the Supreme Court of. Alabama decided upon the act of Congress of 182,4. The grants made after the treaty have been so often confirmed, that' the circumstance 'shows what was meant in the act of Congress under which the plaintiff .in error claims, by “new grants.”' “ New grants” referred to the period of the treaty. The treaty was an epoch from which grants were characterized as new grants.
The grant to, Forbes and Company, under, which the claim of the_. plaintiffs in error is opposed, is for three hundred and four feet. It is nowhere said to go to the river. Thus, if a - riparian right is claimed, at the common law, it is' negatived by the description of the lot.' The grantees are limited to the feet and inches stated in the grant, and have no claim to say the grant extends to high water mark.
The act of Congress, of .1824:, shows that the grants by the Spanish government did not give riparian rights. If the grantees had such rights, why'apply to Congress, to allow them? The plaintiffs in error had. an equitable title before 1824, whiqh. should have been protected. The subsequent act gave them a legal title.
The Courts of Alabama have misconstrued the acts of Congress. A construction has been given'to the act of T824, which rides oyer the title of the lessors of the plaintiffs in error; and this Court only can correct .the judgment of the state Court. B.y the act of 1824, all the lots which belonged to no one, were given to the city of Mobile; but the first section of the act takes no title, equitable, or legal, from any one.
- The construction of the second section of the act of 1824, which is claimed for the defendant, is such as will take away the property of another person. That construction is: If you find an improved lot, give it to the person who has an improved lot above it: thus giving the lot to one who had no agency in the improvement. This is against the grammatical construction of the law, and against the ■just intentions of the national legislature. This will not be sustained by the Court>.unless they will allow one person to take the property of another without compensation, and that the fair grammatical construction of the law shall be disregarded. The object of the law of 1824-was to give lots not granted by the Spanish government,' after the Louisiana treaty; styling such concessions “ new grants” to the persons mentioned in the acts. “ New grants'” were excepted, and were'¡left to the legislation of Congress.
Mr. Key, for the defendants.
The case presents, but few points for the consideration of the Court. It is admitted on the part of the plaintiffs in error, that in 1824 the legal title to the. lot in controversy was in the United States. If this was so, by the act of Congress of 1824 it became vested in the defendants. Before 1824, the'defendants had an equitable title, which was made a perfect legal title by that act.
By the decisions of this Court, in Foster and Elam vs. Neilson; 2 Peters, 253; and Garcia m.'Lee, 12 Peters, 511, Spanish grants, made for any part of the territory west of the Perdido, after' the treaty of 180.3 with France, by which Louisiana was ceded to the United States, are declared void. No equitable title under the Spanish grant,- madé- after 1803, could exist against the .United States.
The whole question between the parties in this case depends on the act of Congress of 1824. It is-to be admitted, that if this act is applicable to the title of the plaintiffs, the title is complete. If the title they claim is within the exception in that act, why ask or take a title under the act of 1836 ?
The title of the defendants is under a Spanish grant of 1802, which has been- confirmed by the United States. The grant was for ground to which the lot claimed by the plaintiffs in error was an accretion. After the treaty of 1803, the riparian rights by the common .law, gave the right to this lot to Forbes and Company. Whatever- was the Spanish law before the treaty, afterwards, the common law prevailed..
A just construction of this act of Congress of-1824, gives the lot to the defendants; arid the judgment of the Supreme Court of Alabama should be sustained by this Court,
Mr. Chief Justice Tasty was prevented sitting in this ease by indisposition.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice Thompson
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The- writ of error in this case brings up the- record of .the final judgment of the Supreme Court of the state of Alabama. This case is brought here under the 25th section of the Judiciary Act of 1789; that Court being the highest Court of law in.that state in which a decision could be had. It was an action of ejectment, brought to recover possession of a lot "of land in the city of Mobile. Upon the trial of the cause, the plaintiff claimed title to the premises in question under an act of Congress, and the decision in the state Court was against the right and title so set úp and claimed. It is, therefore, one of the cases embraced in this section of the Judiciary Act, which gives to this Court jurisdiction to revise the judgment of the state Court.
The act under which title was claimed, was passed on the 26th of May, 1824, (Land Laws, 885,) granting certain lots of ground to the corporation of .the city of Mobile, and to certain individuals of that city. Although the judgment of this Court must-be confined to the error alleged in the decision of the state Court, upon the con structionof theact of Congress under which title was claimed, it becomes necessary, to the right understanding of the act which was drawn in question, to look at the state of facts appearing on the record. It being a' private act, for the benefit of the city of Mobile and certain individuals, it is fair to presume it was passed with reference to the particular claims of such individuals, and the situation of the land embraced within the law at the time it was passed.
These facts, as they appear on the record, are briefly as follow. On the trial, the plaintiff gave in evidence an instrument signed by Cayetano Pérez, dated at Mobile, the 12th day of December, in the year 1809, purporting to be a petition of William Pollard, for a certain lot of ground, which is described as vacant, at the river side, between the.canal, which is called John Forbes and Company's, and the wharf of this place, corresponding in description with the location of the lot in question; and a grant accompanying the petition, in these words: "I grant the petitioner the lot or piece of ground he prays for, on the river bank,-provided it be vacant:" which grant was rejectéd by the commissioners appointed by the government of the United States, to investigate .and report upon such claims, because of the want of improvement and occupation of the lot. The defendant gave in evidence a Spanish grant, dated the 9th of June, in the year 1802, to John Forbes and Company, for a lot of ground eighty feet front on Royal street, with a depth of three hundred and four feet to the east, and bounded on the south by Government street; which grant was recognised by- the commissioners as a perfect title, and so confirmed by Congress. A map or diagram is referred to in the record, by which it appears that the lot sued for is east of Water street, and. immediately in front of the lot conveyed by the above mentioned grant to John Forbes and Company, and only separated from it by Water street. It appeared in evidence, that previous to the year 1819, and until filled up by'Curtis Lewis,-the lot' in question was, at ordinary high tide, covered with water, and mainly so at all stages of the tide. That the ordinary high water flowed from the east, to about the middle of what is now Water street. It was proved that John Forbes and Company had. been in possession of the lot granted to them since the year 1802; and that said lot was known under the Spanish government, as a water lot; no lots at that time existing between it and the water.
•In the year 1823, no one being in possession of the lot in question, ind the same being under water, Curtis Lewis, without title, or claim under title, took possession of and filled up east of Water street, about thirty-six or forty feet wide, and eighty feet deep from Water street; the filling up being north of Government street, at the corner of that and Water street. Lewis remained in possession about nine months, When he was ousted in the night time by James Innerarity, one of, the firm of John Forbes and Company; who caused to be • erected thereon a smith's shop. Lewis, some time after, regained the possession by legal process, and retained it until he conveyed away the same. When Lewis took possession, Water Street, at that place, could be passed by carts, and was common. The defendant connected himself through conveyances for the premises in'question, with the grant to John Forbes and Company, and also with Curtis Lewis, and the mayor and aldermen of the city of Mobile.
Such being the situation of the' lot in question, and of the several claims to the same, the act of. the 26th of May, 1824, was passed. The first section of this act can have no bearing upon the claim set up to the lot in question. It only vests in the city of Mobile all the right and claim of the United States to all the lots not sold or confirmed to individuals, either by this or any former act, and to which no equitable title exists in favour of any individual, under this or any other act. If, therefore, the second section applies to the lot in question at all, it is excepted out of the first section. That the second section does apply to this lot, has not been .and cannot .be doubted. That section is as follows: " That ah the right and claim of the United States to so many of the lots of ground east of Water street,.and between-Church stxeet and North Boundary street, now known as water lots, as are situated between the channel of the river and the front of the lots known under the Spanish government as water lots, in the said city of Mobile, whereon improvements have been made, be, and the same are' hereby, vested in the several proprietors, and occupants of each of the lots heretofore fronting on the river Mobile; except in cases where such proprietor or occupant has alienated his. right to any such lot, now designated as a water lot, or the Spanish government has made a new grant or order .of survey for the same, during the time at which they had the power to grant the same,, in which case, the right and claim of the United* States s'hall be, and is hereby, vested in the person to whom such alienation, grant, or order of survey was made, or in his legal representatives. Provided, that nothing in this act contained, shall be construed to - affect the claim or claims,, if any such there be, of any individual or individuals, or of any body politic or corporate."
There are two facts to be collected from this description . of the lots embraced in this section of the act, which must be kept in view in deciding this question, viz. that the lots on the west side of Water street were known under the Spanish government as. water lots; and that the lots on the-east side of Water street, are now known as water lots, and may properly be distinguished under the denomina tion of old water lots, and hew water lots. -
The only question for .this Court to decide is, whether the state Court misconstrued this act, by deciding against the right and title set up under it by Pollard's heirs. The record states, that the Court charged the jury, that if the lot conveyed as above to- John Forbes and Company, by the deed aforesaid, was known as a water lot under the Spanish government, and if the lot clairhed by the plain tiffs, had been improved at and previous to the '26th day of May, 1804, (the date of the law,) and was east of.Water street, and imme diately in front of the lot so conveyed to John Forbes and Company, then the lot Claimed passed by the act of Congress of the 26th of May,. 1824, to those at that time owning and occupying the lot so as above conveyed to John Forbes and Company.
The facts hypothetically put by the Court to the -jury had been fully proved- in the affirmative; and indeed were not at all denied; to wit, that the lot conveyed to John- Forbes and Company wás known under the Spanish government as a water lot; and that the lot claimed by the plaintiffs had been improved previous to the 26th of May,. 1824, and was in front of the lot conveyed to John Forbes and .Company:
The construction therefore of the Court was, substantially, that the act-conveyed the lot in question to the owners and occupants of the lot conveyed to John Forbes and Company. That such was the construction of the act .given -by the Court, is conclusively shown by the Subsequent part, of the charge: that it was immaterial .who made the improvements on the lot in- dispute on the east side of Water- street. That by the -said act. of Congress, the proprietor of the lot on the west side of Water street, was entitled to the lot on the east side of it.
If this construction of the act was erroneous,, and against the right claimed by the plaintiffs, the judgment must be reversed. The act is, .undoubtedly, very obscurely worded, and its construction^ it must be admitted, is-doubtful.
The principal difficulty arises upon the true understanding and reference of the words, "whereon improvements have been made:" whether they refer to improvements, on the lot on the west side of Water street, or on the lot in question on the east side of Water street. - The grammatical construction would undoubtedly refer the improvements to the lot on the west side of the street, and would be carrying into effect what is believed to be the general course of policy in most of the United States, of giving a preference to the owner of land .on the shore of navigable streams' of water, to-the right and privilege of the land under the water between high and low water -mark. And on the other hand, it would seem unjust, where actual improvements had been made on the land below high water' mark, to-disregard and take away such improvements, and give them to the owner of the lot on the west side of the street.
The evidence as to the extent and value of the improvements on the lot in question is very loose, and affords - but' little informátion upon that point. They could probably have been but of little value. They were made by Curtis Lewis, he not having any title, or even claim of title: And if is not'-reasonable to suppose, that under such circumstances, and from the short time he was in possession before the passage of this act. that he would have made very valuable improvements. And if the intention of Congress had been to give the.lots on the east side of Water street to those who had -improved them, it would have required but a very plain and simple declaration to that effect'; and might have been just and equitable, if such improvements were valuable. But it is difficult to-conceive how the phraseology in'the act could have been adopted to indicate such intention.
It is riot, however, necessary to decide upon the construction of this act, as between the conflicting, claims of the owner of the lot on the west side Of. Water street, and those who had made improvements on the lot on the east side of that street. For there is excepted out of the act, all cases where the Spanish government has made "a new grant," or order of survey for the same, during the time at which they had "the power" to grant the same: in which cases the right and claim of the United States are vested in the person to whom such grant or order of survey was made, or his legal representatives. And if the plaintiffs bring themselves within this exception, the right is secured 'to them. And this presents the question as to the construction to be given to this exception.
Two points of inquiry seem to be presented : one relates to the description of the grant or order of survey therein mentioned; and the other as to the time when made. The exception describes these grants or orders of survey as "new grams" or orders of survey. The term " new," in its ordinary acceptation • when applied to the same subject or object, is the opposite of old. But such cannot be its meaning as here used: for there is no pretence that two grants or orders of survey, had at any time been issued for the. same lot. Some other meaning must, therefore, be given to it. And it, doubtless, was used in relation to the exiting condition of that part of the territory, when grants or orders of survey like the one in question were made. The territory had 1 een ceded to the United States by the Louisiana treaty: but in consequ'ence.of some dispute with Spain respecting the boundary line, this part of the territory remained in the possession of Spain. And it. is a fact, established by the public documents, and laws of Congress, and cases which have come before this Court, that during the period between the cession by France, and the acquiring possession by the United States, Spain continued to issue evidences of title of various descriptions; some complete grants, and others, which were only inchoate rights or concessions. And the term " new" was very appropriately Used as applicable to grants and orders of survey of this description, as contradistinguished from those issued before the cession. And thr construction is rendered certain, when the description of the grants is connected with the subsequent part of the sentence as to the time when made, to wit, during the time at which the Spanish government had " the power" to grant the same. This time, according to every reasonable intendment, must have been so designated with reference to the existing state of the territory as between the United States and Spain: the right to the territory being jn~the United States, and the possession in Spain. The language, " during the time at which Spain had the power to grant the same," was, under such circumstances, very appropriately applied to the case. It could with no propriety have .been applied to the case, if Spain had full dominion over the territory, by the union of right and posses sion; and in this view it is no forced interpretation of the word power, to consider it here used, as importing an imperfect right, and distinguishable' from complete lawful authority. And indeed no other sensible construction .can be given to the language here used: and the course of the government of the United States, with respect to the claims originating during this period would seem necessarily to call for this construction. The .act of Congress of the 25th of April, 1812, appointing commissioners to ascertain the titles and claims to lands on the east side, of the river Mississippi, and west of the river Perdido, and falling within the cession by France; embraced all claims of this description; it extended to' all claims by virtue of any grant, order of survey, or other evidence of claim whatsoever, derived from the French, British, or Spanish governments. And the reports of the commissioners show that evidence of claims of various descriptions, issued by-Spanish authority down to the year 1810, came under the examination of the commissioners: and the legislation of' Congress shows many laws passed confirming incomplete titles, originating after the date of the treaty between France and Spain; at St. Ildefonso.
Such claims are certainly not beyond the reach of Congress to confirm, although it may require a special act of Congress for that purpose; and the present claim being founded üpop such act, dist-inguishes-it from the doctrine of this Court in the cases of Foster and Elam vs. Neilson, 2 Peters, 253; and Garcia vs. Lee, 12 Peters, 511. And such claims have been recognised by this Court as existing claims, and not treated as being absolutely void. In the case of Delacroix vs. Chamberlain, 12 Wheat. 599, an order of survey issued during this period, came under the consideration .of the Court. It bore date in [he year 1S06. The Court said, this order of survey was not sufficient to support an action of ejectment not having been recorded or passed upon by the board of commissioners so as to vest a legal title. But the Court observed, that this order of survey bears date at a time when the Spanish authorities were in the actual possession of Mobile, where the land lies, and it was claimed-as a part of. the Floridas, then belonging to the Spanish crown; and the United States claimed it as a part of Louisiana. That the United States, having since purchased the Floridas, without having previously settled the controverted boundary, rendered it unnecessary to examine these conflicting claims. And the Court add, if the United States, and Spain had settled this dispute by treaty, before they extinguished the claim of Spain to the Floridas, the boundary fixed by such treaty would have bound all parties. But as that' was not done, the United States have never, so far as we can discover, distinguished bétween the concessions of land made by the Spanish authorities within the disputed territory, while Spain was in the actual, possession of it, from concessions of a similar character made by Spain, within the acknowledged limits. We will not, therefore, raise any question upon the ground of want of authority in the intendant to make such concession. Nothing more is to be'understood -from this case, than that the Court:did not con sider the circumstance that the concession being made-whilst Spain was in the' actual possession of the territory, had prevented Congress from acting on the subject of such concessions Aud when Congress, in the act pf 26th of May, 1824, excepts certain grants or orders of survey, .made by Spain during the time at which they, had the power to' grant the same: the conclusion iS irresistible, that it included grants like the one to William Pollard,- now in question. This grant bears date on the 9th day of December, in the year 1809, and was rejected by the commissioner's for want , of improvement and occupation; and not because it was absolutely void. .But suppose it had .been void under the- then -existing laws in relatioh to these lands, it could not prevent. Congress from afterwards confirming this grant". The act of the 26th of March, 1804, (2 Story, 939, sec. 14,) declaring per tain grants void; could not-affect-the one to Pollard, which was made in the year 1809, after the passagé 'of' that law.
But if the construction of the' act of the 26th of -May, 1824; is. doubtful, as it is admitted .to be, the act of the 2d July, 1836, is entitled to great weight in' aiding to rem'ove that doubt. It is an act specially for the relief of William Pollard's heirs. It--declares> that there shall be, and hereby is, Confirmed unto the heirs of William Pollard, deceased, a certain lot of ground, situated in the city of Mobile, and hounded as.follows, to wit:.On the north by what was formerly known as John Forbes and Company's canal; on tlie west by Water street, on the south by the King's wharf, and on the east by the channel of the river; being the description of the lot now in question; and directing a patent to.be issued in the usual form for the same. There is a proviso, declaring that this act shall not interfere with or affect the claims of third -persons. But giving to this proviso its full force and effect, the enacting clause is a legislative construction óf the act of 1824, and locates the patent thereby directed to be issued upon the lot now in question. They are acts in pari materia, and are to be .construed together; and in such a manner, if the language will reasonably admit of it, as to permit both acts to stand together and remain in full -force. It is not to be presumed, that Congress would grant or eve,n simply release the right of the United States to land confessedly before granted. This. would be only holding out inducements to litigation. And these two acts cannot stand together without considering the lot in question as coming within the exception of the act of 1824; and the áct of 1836, as a confirmation, (as it purports to be,) of the title to the heirs of William Pollard.
1 The judgment of -the' Supreme Court of the state of Alabama is, accordingly, reversed.
Mr. Justice M'Lean.
I agree to the judgment of reversal in this case; and as my opinion is mainly founded on the construction of the second section of the act of 1824, without reference to the exceptions it Contains, I will state, in a very few words, my views in regard to that séction.
It declares " that all the right and claim of the United States to so .many of the lots of ground east pf Water street, and between Church street and North Boundary street, now known as water lots, as are situated between the channel of the river and the front of the lots known under the Spanish government as water lots, in the said city of Mobile, whereon improvements have been made, be, and the same are hereby Vested in the several proprietors and .occupants of each of the lots heretofore fronting on the river Mobile; except in cases where such proprietor or occupant has alienated his. right to any such lot, now designated as a water lot, or-the Spanish government has made a new grant," &c:
The lots first named in this section are those to which the right of the United States is relinquished; and those lots are now denominated water lots, in contradistinction to those called water lots under the Spanish government.
" All the right and claim of the United States is relinquished to so. many of the lots of ground" — then follows a description of the locality of these lots, lying "east of Water street, and. between Church street and North Boundary street, now known as water lots, as are situated between the channel of the river and the front of the lots known- under the Spanish government as water lots, in the said city of .Mobile:" and here the description of the locality of these lots ends, and the words "whereon improvements have been made," follow. Now I entertain no doubt the improvements must, be made on the lots first named, and to which the United States relinquish their right; and not on those lots named merely to show the local situation of the present water lots. And this is the construction given to the section by the Supreme Court of Alabama..
The improvements then must be made on the water'lot; and the lot in controversy, in this case, is a water lot.
The Court instructed the jury that "if the- lot claimed- by the plaintiffs had been improved at and previous to the 26th May, 1824, and was east of Water street, and immediately in .front of the lot so conveyed to John Forbes and Company, then the lot claimed, passed by the act of Congress, to those at that time owning and occupying the-lot so as above conveyedto John Forbes and Company; and that it was immaterial who made the improvements on the disputed lot." The second section gives to the proprietor of the lot fronting the water lot, such water lot, provided it has been improved.
Now two things must concur to give a title under this act; and these are, proprietorship of the front lot;.and improvements oii the water lot. But, by whom must these improvements be made or owned, at the passage of the law ?
The act does not specify; and the Court instructed the jury that if improvements were made, it was not material by whom they .were made. Can this be the true construction of the act ?
Congress did not intend to give to the proprietor of the front lot- the water lot, unless it was improved; nor did they intend to give to the person who had improved the water lot, süch lot, unless he was the proprietor of the front lot. The improvements of the water lot were as essential to .the claim of title under this act, as the proprietorship of the front lot. "And can it be supposed that Congress intended to give the water lot to the proprietor of the front lot, for the reason that the water lot had been improved by a stranger? In other words, that Congress, by a solemn act of legislation, would-give a lot óf ground to One man, becaúse.it had been improved by another? This is the principle asserted by this construction; and it is so unjust, and so directly, opposed to the-legislation of-Congress, in regard to the pre-emptive rights, on the. ground of improvements, that I am unwilling^ to sanction it. There is no instance in the entire history of legislation by Congress, where they have sanctioned such a principle. The policy has been to secure to the individúa the benefits of his own labour and expenditure. And I am of the opinion that unless the proprietor of the front lot was, on the 26th May, 1824, also the proprietor of the improvements on th¿ water lot, he can claim no title under the act.