Case Name: The Mayor and Aldermen of the City of Mobile, Plaintiffs in error, v. William E. Hallett, Executor of Joshua Kennedy, deceased, Dependant in error
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1842-01
Citations: 16 Pet. 261
Docket Number: 
Parties: The Mayor and Aldermen of the City of Mobile, Plaintiffs in error, v. William E. Hallett, Executor of Joshua Kennedy, deceased, Dependant in error.
Judges: 
Reporter: United States Reports
Volume: 41
Pages: 261–268

Head Matter:
The Mayor and Aldermen of the City of Mobile, Plaintiffs in error, v. William E. Hallett, Executor of Joshua Kennedy, deceased, Dependant in error.
A grant by the Spanish government, confirmed by the United States, was made of a lot of ground in the city of Mobile running from a certain. boundary eastwardly to the river Mobile. The land adjacent to this lot, and extending from high-water mark to the channel of the river, in frt nt of the lot, was held by the grantee as appurtenant to the fast land above high-water mark. The city of Mobile instituted an action to recover the same, asserting a title to it under the act of Congress of 26th May, 1824, granting certain lots of ground to the corporation of the city of Mobile, and to certain individuals in the said city. Held, that this lot was within the exceptions’ ofithe act of 1824; and no right to the same was vested in the city of Mobile by the act.
IN error to the Supreme Court of the state of Alabama.
The ease was argued by Mr. Test, for the - plaintiffs in error; and by Mr. Key and Mr. Sergeant, for the defendant in error.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice M'Lean
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case is brought here by a writ of error from the Supreme Court of Alabama. ' The plaintiffs claim title under an act of Congress, and the decision of the State Court was agamst the title; whiebf under the twenty-fifth section of the judiciary act, gives jurisdiction to this Court.'
The -plaintiffs brought their action of trespass to try the title to a lot of ground in the city of Mobile, bounded as follows— commencing at a point on St. Louis street, in said city, sixty-six feet west of the corner of St. Louis and Water streets, thence north twenty-five degrees west fo the line dividing the Price claim from the Orange Grove claim, thence parallel with St. Louis street eastwardly to the channel of the river, thence along the channel of the river to a point meeting the line formed by the extension of. the northern boundary of St. Louis street, thence along the north boundary of St. Louis street to the place of beginning; with-certain specified exceptions.
On the trial, the following bill of exceptions was taken: "This cause was tried at the Mobile Circuit Court, of April term, &c., and it was, among other things, proved that the premises which were claimed under an act of Congress, entitled 'An act granting certain lots of ground to the corporation of the city of Mobile, and to certain individuals of said city,' passed 26th May, 1824, were situated north of St. Louis street, and were bounded on the west by high-water mark, and east by the channel of the river: and that the defendant was claimant, in possession of the land lying immediately west, and which extended from some certain bound- . ary eastwardly to the river, and which he held by a Spanish grant, confirmed by the United States. It was proved further that in the year 1824, and at the time of passing the act, Water" street terminated below St. Louis street; and that in front of the lands which it' was proved the defendant possessed in the direction, Water street was not extended or established, nor was its future course of direction known, or in any way determined on. .Whereupon the Court charged the jury, that by the true construction of the act of Congress, the corporation of Mobile are not entitled to the premises in question, because the defendant possessed by grant originating from the Spanish government the adjacent land extending to the river Mobile, and the claim of the corporation was for land immediately west of it,'extending from high-water mark to the channel of the river, to which charge the plaintiffs excepted."
The first section of "the adt of 1S24, vests in the mayor and aldermen of the city of Mobile, for the time being, and their successors in office, for the sole use and benefit of the city, forever, all the right and claim of the United States to all the lots not sold or confirmed to individuals, either by that or any former act, and to. which no equitable title existed in favour of an individual, under that or any othér act, between high-water mark and the channel of the river, and between Church street and North Boundary street in front of the city.
And the second section of the act, which relinquishes the claim of the United States to the proprietors of front lots certain water lots which they had improved; excepts from the operation of the law, cases "where the Spanish government had 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 wmc'n case, the right and claim of the United States shall be, and is hereby vested in the person to whom such alienation, grant, or order of survey, was made, or in his legal representative. Provided, tnat nothing in the' act contained shall be construed to affect the claim or claims, if any such there be, of any individual," &c.
From both sections of the above act, it will be perceived, that Congress carefully guarded against any interference with existing rights. In the first section, lots sold or confirmed to individuals, either by that or any former act to which an equitable title existed in favour of any individual, were excepted from the operation of the act; and the proviso to the second section declares that the act shall not be so construed as to affect the claims of any individual.
From the bill of exceptions, it appears, that the defendant was in possession of the land in controversy' under a Spanish grant, which was confirmed by the United States; and that the land extended to the Mobile river. It was then within the exception in the act of 1824, and no right vested in the plaintiffs. We think, therefore, that the instruction of the Circuit Court to this effect, was right. The judgment of the Circuit Court was affirmed by the Supreme Court of Alabama, and we affirm the judgment of the latter Court.