Case Name: Coleman et al., Appellants, v. Allen
Court: Supreme Court of Missouri
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 1882-04
Citations: 75 Mo. 332
Docket Number: 
Parties: Coleman et al., Appellants, v. Allen.
Judges: All concur.
Reporter: Missouri Reports
Volume: 75
Pages: 332–333

Head Matter:
Coleman et al., Appellants, v. Allen.
1. Pre-emption of Public Lands: assignment of tiie right. A. settled upon land, but was refused permission to enter the same. His right of entry being judicially determined in his favor after his death, his heirs consummated the pre-emption right, entered the land, and a patent was issued to them in 1866, whereupon they conveyed to B.; but they had previously, in 1862, conveyed to C. Held, that the conveyance executed prior to the entry and patent was valid as against that made subsequent thereto.-
2. -: -. A pre-emption claim on lands not declared public, although contingent, is a fixed fact, awaiting such action of the government as will ripen the conditional into a positive right; and the • pre-emptor, though he acquires no right against the government, is protected from intrusion by others, and his interest in the land is assignable.
3. -: -. The act of Congress of September 4th, 1841, (U. S. Stat., 456, $ 12,) which declares all assignments of the rights thereby secured null and void, does not refer to the possession or the right of possession, to the title or to the land itself, but simply to the right to be preferred over all others as a purchaser from the government at an established price, and the limitation upon alienation in that act has no application to the rights secured to the heirs of a deceased settler under the act of March 3rd, 1843.
Appeal from St. Louis Court of Appeals.
Aeetrmed.
Britton A. Hill and T: J. Delaney for appellants.
8. T. Glover and E. B. Cowan for respondents.
These syllabi are taken from 5 Mo. App. 127.

Opinion:
Sherwood, C. J.
"We have examined this cause,.and upon such examination, concur-in the reasoning of the court of appeals. 5 Mo. App. 127. We, therefore, affirm the judgment of that court, which was in affirmance of that of the circuit court.
All concur.