Case: The Heirs of Don Carlos de Vilemont, Appellants, v. The United States
Abbreviation: de Vilemont v. United States
Decision Date: 1851-12
Docket Number: 
Citation: 13 How. 261
Volume: 54
Reporter: United States Reports
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction: United States
Parties: The Heirs of Don Carlos de Vilemont, Appellants, v. The United States.
Judges: 
Pages: 261–268

Head Matter:
The Heirs of Don Carlos de Vilemont, Appellants, v. The United States.
In 1795, Baron de Carondelet, the Governor-General of Xouisiana, made a grant of land on the Mississippi Kiver, upon condition that a road and clearing should be made within one year, and an establishment made upon the land within three years.
Neither of these conditions was complied with, nor was possession taken under the grant until after the cession of the country to the United States.
The excuses for these omissions, namely, that the grantee was commandant at the post of Arkansas, and that the Indians were hostile, are not satisfactory; because the grantee must have known these circumstances when he obtained the grant.
According to the principles established in the preceding case of Glenn and Thruston v. The United States, the Spanish authorities would not have confirmed this grant, neither can this court confirm, it.
Moreover, in this case, the land claimed cannot be located by a survey.
This was an appeal from the District Court of the United States for the District of Arkansas.
It was a^jietition 'filed by the heirs of Don Carlos dé Vilemont, under the act of 1824, as revived by the act of 1844, praying the confirmation of a grant of land issued by the Baron de Carondelet in 1795.
The circumstances attending the grant are ■ set forth in the opinion of the court.
The District Court decided against the claim and the petitioners appealed to this court.
In the District Court, Horace F. Walworth, Mary B.- Miles, and' James B. Miles, were made defendants with the United States.
It was argued-in this court by Mr. Taylor, for'the appellants, and Mr. Lawrence and Mr. Crittenden, (Attorney-General,) for the appellees. A brief was also filed by Mr. Pike for Mr. Walworth
Mr. Taylor, for the appellants,
thus noticed the. omission of Vilemont to comply with the conditions of the grant. (It will be seen, by referring to the opinion of the court, that this -was an important point in the case.)
The confirmation of the claim ig resisted in the answer of the District Attorney, on the ground that the conditions of the grant wtere not complied with. The conditions, as has already been stated, were those almost invariably inserted in orders of survey, that a road. and a settlement should be made within a given day. The record contains the testimony of two aged inhabitants of Louisiana, who, as officers in the same regiment in which Vilemont served many years, were attached to the person of the Governor, and one of whom was employed ih the Land-Office in New Orleans, showing that these conditions .were mere matters of form and mechanically inserted ydth the orders of survey, without inquiring into the situation of the land. They add that they never were enforced, and that no land was ever forfeited under the Spanish government on account of a non-compliance with these conditions. This testimony is emphatically confirmed by Judge. Simon, for mány ■years a practising lawyer in Louisiana, and during six years a. judge of the Supreme Court of that State, before whose eyes probably thousands of such claims have passed.
In this instance the. land was asked for-to establish a stock farm. What neééssity was there to cultivate it, if such was the purpose of the grant ? And how much of the two leagues front and one in depth should have been cultivated and established ? The land was twenty-five leagues below the mouth of the Arkansas, and -more than that distance from any. white set tlement. What use would there have been for a road, and where would it have been ?
But if these conditions, in such a case, were more than an idle formality, Vilemont would have been relieved from a compliance with them. In 1795, when the grant was made, and until 1802, Vilemont was the civil and military commandant of the post of Arkansas. During all this period he never left his post, not even to visit New Orleans. His presence 'there wás constantly required by the threatening aspect of the Indian tribes by whom he was surrounded, while the garrison of the fort never exceeded forty men. Bight - letters from Governor Carondelet to Vilemont, (which will be found bn pp. 72 - 76 of the printed and Vilemont’s official correspondence with, the Govérnor of Louisiana, until his appointment to a higher office; in 1802,) furnish a striking proof of the arduous service in which he was engaged, and of ceaseless feuds among the Indians, and attacks upon the whites, and leave no doubt that even a temporary absence from the command would not have been tolerated by the Governor. Can'it be pretended that, under these circumstances, the government seriously, and under pain of forfeiture; expected him to make a road within one year, and a settlement within three years, upon this rude and remote spot ? The. government kept him until 1802 at the post of Arkansas; the government then removed him to a. new scene of service, and this, if any case, falls under the rule established in the United States v. Arredondo et al., 6 Pet. 745. “ It is an acknowledged fact that if a grant is. made on a condition subsequent, and its performance becomes impossible by the act of the grantor, the grant becomes single.”
The other reason why a settlement could not be required of Vilemont is, that hostile Indians made it impossible. Vilemont was not bound, though he might have attempted, to form a settlement by agents. Indeed, already, in 1795 or 1796, he sent Bogy there with that object, but Bogy was driven off by the Indians. Nor did the danger from the Indians cease until a •number of years after the change of gbvernment.
Mr. Crittenden, for the United States, made the following points:
I. That the appeal ought to be dismissed for want of being duly prosecuted.
II. That the appellants’ ancestor was never put in possession of.the lands, and the conditions on which the concession was made were not performed during the time therein, limited, or during the sovereignty of Spain over the country, or subsequently.
There is no evidence whatever that the Surveyor-General, or a deputy approved by him, ever put Vilemont into possession of the lands ■ as required by the terms of the concession. No survey was ever made, and no plat and certificate were ever reported to the governor, and no title in form could therefore have been issued to Vilemont at any time during the continuance of the Spanish power.
The petition of de Vilemont sets forth his desire to establish a plafitation.and stock farm, in order to supply the post, of which he was commandant, with cattle. This is the inducement he presents to de Carondelet to make the concession. It was accordingly. made to him under the express condition that he-shall make the regular road and clearing within the peremptory term of one year, the concession to be null, if, at the precise expiration of three years, the land should not be'established.
From the date of the grant, in 1795, until the delivery of Louisiana to the United States, in 1803, he had completely failed to comply with the conditions above mentioned, and thereby forfeited all right to require a title in form. He had done nothing whatever. This, therefore, is not such a concession as might have been perfected into a complete title had not the sovereignty of the country been transferred to the United States.
But to examine the evidence on the point of non-performance of the conditions presented in the record:
The appellants themselves state, in their petition, that De Vilemont “ endeavored, soon after the date of said concession, to procure persons to make a settlement, but could not succeed ” on account of the danger arising from-fiostile Indians. It further states, “ that in the year 1803 he again attempted a settlement, but that, from the year 1807,” he, or persons employed by him or his family, had been in actual possession of part of-the land.
The above is the petitioners’ own statement. In jaio, m De Vilemont’s lifetime, when he presented his claim to the recorder of land titles, he did not submit a particle of proof to show that he had done any thing with respect to establishing the stock farm, making the road, or settling the land. Joseph Bogy, his father-in-law,' then ’ testified that he, De Vilemont, proposed to witness to settle on the tract, but that he declined on account of the supposed danger from the Indians, which continued until 1803. Francis de Vaugene also then testified that the Indians continued so hostile as to make it unsafe to settle at -Isle Chicot till the year 1803.
It will thus be seen that De Vilemont made no pretence then, or offered no proof to show, that he had fulfilled any of the conditions, but he sets up an excuse merely for not having done so. The recorder, under the column titled “ possession, inhabitation, or cultivation,” states, “ danger from the Indians prevented settlement,” and gives his opinion that the claim ought not to be confirmed, the conditions not having been complied with.
Mr. Crittenden then examined the evidence.
But it is said that De Vilemont could not leave his post to attend to the performance of the conditions, that he was prevented from' performance by danger fronf the Indians, and that the conditions were merely formal.
The answers to the first of these excuses are obvious. De Vilemont styles himself, in the petition to Baron dé Carondelet, the commandant of the post of Arkansas, and asks for the land at the place it is given, the inducement being, that he might furnish cattle to the post. It would be strange if, under these circumstances, his not being allowed to leave the post should expuse the pérformance of the conditions. As to being prevented from establishing the stock farm, and performing the other conditions, by danger from the Indians, he knew that the Indians were in the country at the time he made the application ; and if he sought for a concession, the conditions of which he could not comply with, it can afford no exemption from their performance. As to the allegation that the conditions were merely formal, it is negatived by the third article of O’Reilly’s regulation, where the non-performance of the conditions as to roads, settlements, &c., is thus spoken of: “ And in default of fulfilling these conditions, their land shall revert to the king’s domain, and be granted anew.” 2 White’s Recop. 228. These regulations were approved bythe king. See letter of Marquis de Grimaldi to Unzaga, 24th August, 1770, Id. 460. See also the third, fourth, fifth, and sixth articles of regulations of Morales, Id. 235.
III. That the evidence in the casé shows that De Vilemont had abandoned his claim to the land.
IV. That the concession is void, because no land was Severed from the public domain by survey giving it a certain location, previous to the treaty of cession, and the description is so vague, indefinite, and uncertain, that no location can be given to the lands. United States v. Miranda, 16 Pet. 156; United States v. Boisdoré, 11 How. 63.
V. That the decree as to floats'is void, the individuals holdr ing the lands in respect of which floats are decreed, not having been made parties in the case.
The Spanish word is printed percutorio ; it should have been pmmptorio.- All the translators agree in translating peremftorio.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice CATRON
delivered th^ opinion of the court.
The heirs of Don Carlos de Vilemont filed their petition in the District Court of Arkansas; to have a confirmation of a grant for two leagues of land front, by one league in depth, lying on the right descenNug bank of the Mississippi, at a place called the Island del Chico!, distant twenty-five leagues below the mouth of the Arkansas River; the cypress swamp of the island being-called for as the upper boundary of said tract.
The-Governor-General granted the land on the express conditions/" that a road and regular clearing be made in the peremptory space of one year; and this concession to be null, if, at the expiration of three years' time, the said land shall not be established ; and, during which time it cannot be alienated; under which conditions the plat and certificate of survey shall be made out and remitted to me in order to provide the interested with the corresponding title in form." The concession was made June 17, 1795. No possession was taken of the land by De Vilemont, nor any survey made or demanded, during the existence of the Spanish government. The petition .alleges that possession was first taken in 1807; and as an excuse for the delay, it is stated, that the grantee was commandant at the post of Arkansas up to the end of the year 1802, and confined to his official duties there; and, 2dly, that so hostile were the Indians in the neighborhood of the land, that no settlement could be made on it. The proof shows that De Vilemont first took possession in 1822 or 1823. The 2d regulation of O'Reilly of 1770, required that roads should be made and kept in repair, in case of grants fronting on the Mississippi River; and that grantees should be bound within the term of three years to clear the whole front of their lands to the depth of two arpens ; and, in default of fulfilling these conditions, the land claimed should- re-, vert to the king's domain; nor should proprietors alienate until after three years' possession was held, and until the conditions were entirely fulfilled. In this instance the time was restricted to one year, for making the improvements required by the regulations, and three years were allowed for making an establishment on the premises. In this case where a front of six miles was granted, a clearing to the whole extent was of course not contemplated ; yet to a reasonable extent it certainly was ; but it was undoubtedly necessary, that an establishment should be made within three years — such being the requirement of the concession, in concurrence with the regulations.
The act of March 26, 1804, prohibited any subsequent entry on the land; and declared void all future, acts done. to the end of obtaining a perfect title even by a.n actual settler, if the' settlement was not made before the 20th of December, 1803; De Vilemont's title must therefore abide by its condition when the act of 1804 was passed. For further views on this subject we refer to our opinion expressed on Glamorgan's title, at the present term, in the case of Glenn and Thruston v. The United States.
We are asked to decree a title, and to award a patent, on the same .grounds that the Governor-General of Louisiana, or the Intenda'nt, would have been bound to do, had application for. a perfect title been made during the existence of the Spanish colonial government. The only consideration on which such title could have been founded, was inhabitation and cultivation, either by De Vilemont himself, or his tenants ; and having done nothing of the kind, he had no right to a title; nor can an excuse be heard that hostility from Indians prevented a compliance with the conditions imposed, as Vilemont took his concession subject to this risk; and the alleged excuse that he was commandant of the post of Arkansas, and bound to be constantly there in the performance of his official duties, is still more idle, as he held this office when the concession was made, and knew what his duties were.
. The petition was dismissed by the District Court, because the land claimed could not be located by survey. The concession is for two leagues front, by one in depth, with parallel boundaries, situate at Chicot Island; the cypress swamp on the island being the upper boundary. Chicot Island is represented in the concession as being twenty-five leagues below the mouth of the Arkansas River. The land -now claimed by the petition is represented to' lie five leagues below the mouth of that river, at a place known as Chicot Point; being a peninsula included in a sudden bend, and surrounded on three sides by the Mississippi'River.
It is difficult to conceive that Chicot Point, lying in fact nearly twenty-five leagues below the mouth of the Arkansas, is the Chicot Island to which the concession refers ; but admitting that the Point, was meant, (which we believe to be the fact,) still, no cypress swamp is found there to locate the upper boundary; nor is it possible to make a decree fixing any one side line, or any one place of beginning, for a specific tract of land.
. Our opinion is, that, on either of the grounds stated, the'petition should be dismissed, and the decree below affirmed.
Order.
This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the District Court of the United States, for the Dis trict of Arkansas, and was argued by counsel. On consideration whereof, it is now here ordered, adjudged, and decreed by this court, that the decree of the said District Court in this cause be, and the same is hereby, affirmed.