Case Name: Jackson, ex dem. Shultze and another, against Goes
Court: New York Supreme Court of Judicature
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1816-10
Citations: 13 Johns. 518
Docket Number: 
Parties: Jackson, ex dem. Shultze and another, against Goes.
Judges: 
Reporter: Johnson's Reports
Volume: 13
Pages: 518–525

Head Matter:
Jackson, ex dem. Shultze and another, against Goes.
ejectmenttoVenmMn”tite1 initííé^demlse’o? Ufffproduced'in tent top, l.,pal anee it the^ct of the 6th April. 1790, “to carry into effect'<thc concurrent nsolutxons of the. la&siature, for granting certain lands promised to be given as.bVunlands promised £ tL^deféndaiit tbere^was^notblrname°oDf pf who was too revoihtionarSybe war to be a soldier, and that km» the war and It ':nponfttwt *£ Sant was eni ment. t0 juds*.
for ’a CdSdañt provlctmt|at la ||pafentema°i? same name, was grantUed,by the
THIS was an action of ejectment: brought to recover lot 39., in the town of Manlius, in the county of Onondaga* The cause was tried before Mr. Justice Yates, at the Onondaga circuit, 1X1'June, 1-8-16. ' . . -
At the trial, the plaintiff produced in evidence letters patent, dated the i3th of September, 1790, by which, ift pursuance of an 1 ’ , ~1 act ot the legislature, passed the 6tn of ■ 9 } 1 * , « An act tocarry into effect the concurrent resolutions ancl acts , 0f legislature for granting certain tends, promised to be ilj 1790; entitled gjven as bounty lands, and for other purposes, therein inert-tioned,’’ the premises in question were granted to Peter Shultze in ffee.. It was proved' that Peter Shultze, ' one 'of ' the lessors of the plaintiff, was now living, and had,.for twenty years -past,, lived at Rhinebeclc, in the county of Dutchess.
Daniel Petre, a witness bn thé part of the defendant, testified, d * • ” i ■■ . " « "i • ' - that about seven years.ago, he saw at a meeting of. the- brnders ® militia artillery regiment; at N éto-Harlfórdl;a mail ii&méd Hfiter Shultze, who was a second lieutenant in the regiment, ahd tiffed At Warren, in the county of Herkimer, and was, at that time, alrout 31 or 32 years of age. ’
Timothy Teal, another witness on the part of the defendant, testified, that in August, 1812, he went- ••toRhinébeck, -tp--séé- Peter Shultze, for the purpose of procuring evidence of the fact, whether; Shultze had ever been a soldier in-the revolutionary war, and was entitled to bounty lands, a suit being then pending *n favour of Shultze, against one Bristol,'for ¿he premises in ques íion. The witness inquired of Shultze if he had a lot of land in the military tract, and Shultze said that an officer up the Mohawk river had drawn a lot for him, but his attorneys had told him to say nothing about it. Shultze further stated, that he was never up the Mohawk river, nor at fort Stanwix, and had enlisted a man during the war, and should not have known of his having a lot, had he not been informed of it by a gentleman,, and he did not know how much of it he should get. The witness stated that Shultze appeared to be about sixty years old.
Samuel Van Orden, another witness on the part of the defendant, testified, that he had, about ten days before the trial, been employed by the persons under whom the defendant held, to go to Rhinebeck to ascertain whether Shultze had been a soldier during the war, and that Shultze told him that he was chosen a lieutenant at West Point and at White Plains, but had never served at the Northward, nor had been a private during the war. When the witness asked Shultze what he had done with his military lands, he said that one Tillotson had proceeded to get his land, and had lost one or two suits, that he never expected to get any thing, and had not enlisted during the war, but claimed the land in the right of a soldier whom he had hired as a substitute.
A verdict was taken for the plaintiff, subject to the opinion of the court, on a case containing the facts above stated.
Vanderheyden, for the plaintiff.
Loucks, for the defendant.
For the Plaintiff, it was contended, that the letters patent to Peter Shultze must be conclusive, unless it was issued without competent authority, or was void on the face of it, or was prohibited by some statute.
In the case of Jackson, ex dem. Horseman, v. Hart, it was held that patents granted to soldiers for military services, did not come within either of these exceptions. The commissioners of the land office, in issuing these patents, were directed, by statute to adjudicate on the claims, and thus acting.in a judicial character," their judgment can no more be declared void than those of a competent court of law.
If these patents are not void, but voidable only for mistake, then the proper- remedy is by scire facias, out of chancery,, .to vacate them ; on which the'patentee, or in case of bis death, his legal-representatives, must be summoned to show cánse.
-The -consideration of letters paten t Can no more bednquired into :by a Tqurt of law, than the consideration of a deed. ’
The defendant cannot set up any title in- the slate, for such. title must be inchoate only, and it requires certain proceedings in chancery to reyést the property in the state;, as, in. ejectment,-, the -tenant cannot set up the alienage of the lessor of theplaintifiV before office found Could-the state take-possession of-this lot without a previous application to a c.ourtof chancery to vacate- the .patent-1 And if an action of ejectment should be brought .in the name of the people,'might-not a tenant show a tide out of the -lessors, by producing the letters patent to Peter ShultzeZ. Tlieré. .can be no necessity, in this case, of resorting to parol evidence; for-it is not pretended thatflie grant Was for any "per* son-.but the lessor. There is no latent ambiguity, as there is no person of a similar name^claiming tide to the premises,, as whs the ease in Jackson, ex dem. Dickson and others, v. Stanly, and Jackson, ex dem. Houseman, v. Hart.
Again’; the tenant in possession- has', a mere naked1 occupancy, a, species of title which the- Chief Justice, in Jackson v. ffari, contrasted with that of the defendant,'
That it was proved at the trial that the lessor, of the plaintiff -confessed he had never served in -the line of the army, is perfectly immaterial ; as no consideration of military-services is expressed in the letters patent, that fact cannot/be inquired into in .a court of law.
On the production,of the letters patent, in this case, the plain* tiff is entitled, prima facie, to recover. The onus prohandi lies on the defendant to showthé title to be in the person under whom he claims.;' It is no answer to the plaintiff’s claim,, that.thefe is a- person of the same name with the lessor,-without s-howing-m title to the premises in such person.- Besides, how is it certain, that the person proved by. the defendant is. not, in truth, the- les-. sor of the plaintiff ?
■For the defendant, it was argued, that on the- principles, ad* knitted in the case of Jackson, ex, dem. Houseman, v. Hart, the correctness of which decision- i f w as not .-intended to- question, the defendant was entitled to Judgment in his favour. The court there said the patent was conclusive,, that, the paten* tee named was the person intended by the legislature; and that where a person of a different name claimed the land, parol evidence was not admissible to explain that intention, it was agreed, however, that if there were two persons of the same name, it would be a latent ambiguity, and parol evidence was admissible to explain which of the two was intended.
The lessor 'of the lessor, no doubt, on producing the patent, is, prima facie, entitled to recover; but the defendant having proved the existence of another person of the same name, the burden of proof, as to the identity of the patentee, is thereby thrown on the plaintiff; for the plaintiff in ejectment must, emphatically, recover on the strength of his own title.
By the act of the legislature, a certain district of country was set apart for the two regiments of this state, serving in the army of the United Staíet, and no patents were to be issued to any other persons. This is a public act of which the court are bound to take notice. The patent in question was granted for a lot of land in the tract discribed in the act; and the intention of the legislature is thus made manifest by the act. The act and the patent are to be taken together; and it clearly appears from them, not only that a person of the name of 'Peter Shullze was intended, but that he was a soldier; and if the defendant, on the trial, shows that the lessor of the plaintiff was not a soldier, that fact will be sufficient to prevail over the mere circumstance of a similarity of name.
Jackson, ex dem, Mancious, v. Lawton, 10 Johns. Rep. 26.
12 Johns. Rep. 77. 82.
Jackson v. Beach, 1 Johns, Cas. 401.
10 John. Rep. 133.

Opinion:
P.LATT, J.,
was of opinion that the plaintiff was not entitled, to recover, and thought the ease clearly distinguishable from that of Jackson, ex. dem. Houseman, v. Hart the principle of which decision he held to be sound law.
Yates, J., and Van Ness, J., declared themselves to be of the same opinion.