Howard, 400; 15 Peters, 93; 5 Cranch, 93; 13 Peters, 498.) Again, as both of the titles here relate chiefly to the same land, the junior title might, but for other objections, be allowed under the Act of 1836 to be located elsewhere, and then in some sense be deemed inferior. (Les Bois v. Bramell, 4 Howard, 449, 464.) But Eslava's claim covers more than that by Farmer's heirs. Besides this, it did not originate independent of Farmer's, but on the hypothesis that Farmer's had been abandoned and become vacant, and a title to the lot is set up also under long possession since, by Eslava and his grantors. The superior right is then to be settled under these facts, and not as if double patents had been issued for a title, existing at the same time to the same lot, and from like sources. There are no other questions raised on the record by the bill of exceptions, as to overruling the validity or superiority of either title, in connection with the United States. 448*] *Though in the argument, on the side of the plaintiff, the title is contended to be superior, because commencing earlier, notwithstanding it is broken by an absent deed, and because certified earlier for confirmation. On the other side, the defendant's is insisted to possess a higher equity, because accompanied by a longer possession, an earlier survey, the erection of valuable buildings, and the claimant being both a Spaniard and resident when the country was ceded to the United States. But the State court does not appear to have given instructions on any of these particulars, or to have been specially requested to do it, and it is questionable whether the legal effect of any of them, if considered, would have been very material to the title, when both titles were treated by the government and the public officers as imperfect grants, and both confirmed at the same time by the same act of Congress. All the right or title really obtained in either from the United States is a confirmation of a grant and permit made before the cession. and deemed by the local officers incomplete and imperfect. Yet, so far as derived or held under the United States, each title was of the same rank or dignity and duration with the other. Some questions arose at the trial concerning the construction of deeds and other convey ances. In both lines of title, buildings only are in some instances nominally conveyed, and not in terms the lots on which they were situated; in both, too, some of the boundaries are unsettled, and the quantity of land in dispute by the papers is viewed differently. But such questions as these are subordinate to the question of title, and proper for the consideration of the State court in exercising its appropriate juris diction over local questions, and hence not sub ject to our revision. (13 Peters, 439; United States v. King, 3 Howard, 773.) Various other objections connected with the paper title on both sides appear, and almost every year some new difficulty is started in respect to Spanish and French grants, which is perplexing, and which at times seems to bring into doubt parts of former decisions. But the chief trouble in disposing of this class of cases is in ascertaining the facts, happening under a foreign government, and after such a long lapse of time, and especially when new papers and some new witnesses are frequently discovered; and the aspect of particular claims is often thus materially changed. Where, however, rights of property have been adjudged, and litigation in some degree quieted, it is much better to regard them as binding, than to disturb or change them, and the actual possession, for slight or doubtful reasons. *The errors in the law of a case, on [*449 the facts at any time presented, are not likely to be material, where the Civil Code is the basis of it under Spain and France, and when that and its enlightened equities are well understood, and, with the plain provisions in treaties and acts of Congress, will lead usually to correct conclusions. Only one other source of title, set up under the United States, remains to be examined. It is a provision in the fifth section of the Act of May 8th, 1822, giving to the registers and receivers in this part of Alabama "the same powers to direct the manner in which all lands confirmed by this act shall be located and surveyed, and also to decide between the parties in all conflicting and interfering claims, as given in" another act mentioned, 3 Statutes at Large, 700. It is contended that in 1837 they decided such claims, concerning titles be tween these parties, and decided them in favor of the plaintiff, and therefore that the State court should have instructed the jury that his title was the better one. But we do not consider that the Act of May 8th, 1822, and that of the same date which is connected with it, and referred to as in pari materia for a guide (p. 708), meant to confer the adjudication of titles of land on registers and receivers. (7 Peters, 94.), Those officers are not usually lawyers, and their functions are in general ministerial rather than judicial. Sometimes, as in the case of pre-emptioners, they are authorized to decide on the fact of cultivation or not; and here, from the words used, no less than their character, they must be considered as empowered to decide on the true location of grants or confirmations, but not on the legal and often complicated question of title, involving also the whole interests of the parties, and yet allowing no appeal or revision elsewhere. The power given to them, as before quoted, is to decide only how "the lands confirmed shall be located and surveyed.” (p. 700.) The further power "to decide on conflicting and interfering claims" should apply only to the location and survey of such claims, which are the subject matter of their cognizance; and on resorting to the reference made to the second act of Congress, that act appears to relate also to decisions on intrusions upon possessions and kindred matters. (p. 708.) The language concerning this is, if conflicts arise, these officers, in settling them, shall "be governed by such conditional lines or boundaries as may have been agreed on" before the act passed, &c. (p. 708.) So far from professing themselves to act on titles, in cases of conflict, they usually take evidence or settle boundaries alone. *The map from the surveyor's office [*450 in Alabama, of 22d. April, 1837, confirms this. It is a mere location and survey of the different tracts; and the register of the warrant is enti tled by them, "Register of Locations issued for Confirmed Claims," &c. So, in cases of commissions to settle land claims, Congress seldom intrusts the final adjudication of titles to them, but requires them to report their opinions; and the titles are rejected or confirmed by Congress, as most proper under all the evidence on a revision of it. (7 Peters, 95; 12 Peters, 453.) seems The language changes in the acts of Congress when the local land officers are to act in any way on titles, and the expression is dis tinct, titles and claims," as when asking them for evidence to be reported, as is sometimes done in respect to titles. See Act of March 3d, 1827 (4 Stat. at Large, 240). Or it is "titles to be referred to and confirmed by Congress." (1 Land Laws, 437.) Or it is expressed that this decision shall not "be construed to prevent or bar the judicial decision between persons claiming titles to the lands confirmed." Under these considerations, we do not feel justified in changing the judgment rendered in the State court. Beside the cases already referred to in support of this conclusion, we would quote, as in several respects directly in point, McDonogh v. Millaudon (3 Howard, 706, 707). Judgment affirmed. ORDER. This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record from the Supreme Court of the State of Alabama, and was argued by counsel; on consideration whereof, it is now here ordered and adjudged by this court, that the judgment of the said Supreme Court in this cause be, and the same is hereby affirmed, with costs. exercised only in cases of imperfect grants, confirmed by the act of Congress, and not cases of act. perfect title. In these they had no authority to Hence, where a State court left the question of location to be settled by a jury, this court will not disturb the judgment of the State court founded upon such finding. THIS case was brought up, from the Supreme THIS case was brough, by a writ of error, is sued under the twenty-fifth section of the Judiciary Act. It was a branch of the preceding case of the same plaintiff against Eslava. In the statement of that case, it is mentioned that the suit was brought against all the defendants conjointly, but that the city of Mobile obtained leave to sever in their plea. This case is the result of that severance. The title of the plaintiff is set forth in extenso in the report of the preceding case, and need not be here repeated. The defendants produced no official survey or patent for the lot in question, but relied exclusively upon the Act of Congress passed on the 26th of May, 1824 (4 Stat. at Large, 66). The bill of exceptions states all the points in which this case differs from the preceding Bill of Exceptions. one. "DOE, ex dem. FARMER'S HEIRS, v. ROE, MAYOR and ALDERMEN OF Ejectment. 66 'Mobile Circuit Court. "Be it remembered, that on the trial of this cause, the plaintiff, to maintain the issue on his part, produced and read to the court and Cited 9 How., 467, 469;22 How., 34; 24 How.. 361 jury from the third volume of the American 4 Wall., 210. Aff'g 11 Ala., 1028. State Papers, title Public Lands, page 18, an abstract of the title to the lessors of [*452 the plaintiff, being claim No. 45, and which it 451*] *JOHN DOE, ex dem. of CATHA- is agreed may be read from the said book on RINE LOUISA BARBARIE; ANN BILLUP the hearing of the cause in the Supreme Court BARDE, DANIEL R. BROWER and ANN B. BROWER, his Wife: CURTIS LEWIS and ISABELLA LEWIS, his Wife; JOHN T. LACKEY and MARGARET LACKEY, his Wife, Heirs and Legal Representatives of ROBERT FARMER, Deceased, v. THE MAYOR, ALDERMEN AND COM- of this State, or the United States, if it shall be carried thither. He likewise read to the court and jury the Act of Congress passed the 8th day of May, 1822, confirming said claim. He further read to the court and jury a patent from the United States, issued in pursuance thereof, dated the 14th day of November, 1837, for the premises in question, granted to the heirs of the said Robert Farmer, in right of Philip Gonjon de Grondel, wherein the said premises are described as follows, to wit: Beginning at a post on the line of the claim of William McVoy, at the distance of twenty four feet north of the northeast angle of Government Street and Emanuel Street; running thence north sixty-nine degrees east (with the line of MeVoy), eighty-nine feet seven inches to a stake, the southeast angle of a brick cotton shed, bearing north seventeen degrees west, distant forty-two feet one inch; thence north seventeen degrees Under the two acts of Congress passed on the 8th forty minutes west, two hundred and twentyof May, 1882 (4 Stat. at Large, 700 and 708), the reg-four feet, to the south boundary, of the bakeister and receiver of the land office were not em- house lot; thence with said south boundary, powered to settle conflicting titles but only conHlicting locations. south seventy five degrees fifteen minutes west, eighty-nine feet six inches, to the east boundary of Emanuel Street; thence with said street, south seventeen degrees forty minutes east, two Jurisdiction-question of boundary between ad. jacent owners depending upon local law-authority of register and receiver appointed by act of Congress, decides only upon incomplete titles. In this case they did not describe a boundary line by visible objects, but called to bound upon another line. The authority given to these officers was to be 212 hundred and thirty-four feet, to the place of beginning; containing twenty thousand four hundred and ninety-five superficial feet Enlish, and being a lot in the city of Mobile, and State of Alabama, in township four south of range one west, in the district of lands subject to sale at St. Stephen's, Alabama, a copy of which patent is hereto attached as a part of this record. The plaintiff proved the defendants in possession of the premises, the particular location thereof, the heirship of the lessors, &c. And it was further proved on the part of the plaintiff, that Robert Farmer was a British subject, a native of North America, and died in Mobile about the year 1780 or 1781, as appears from the deposition of Madame Beaumont hereto attached as a part of this record; that he was an officer of the British army at the time of his death; that the family, shortly after the conquest by Spain of that Province, removed from the Province, and none of them returned during the whole period of the Spanish supremacy. And that De Vobiscey, father of one of the lessors, came to Mobile in 1818 or 1819, to set up the claims of the family. The defendants, for the purpose of maintaining their issues, introduced the Act of Congress of the 26th of May, 1824, entitled An act granting certain lots of ground to the corporation of the city of Mobile, and to certain individuals 453*] *of said city,' and claimed the lot in dispute as a portion of the bakehouse lot speci fied in said act. fore this suit for the same; that the witnesses knew of no written evidence of any suit that was before the jury; that improvements had been made on the lot by the defendants, on the line as now claimed by them. "The object of all this testimony on the part of the defendants being to show that the king's bakehouse lot was as it is claimed to be by the defendants, and to show that the defendants are not in possession of any lands that did not form a portion of the said lot, and that the courses and distances laid down in the patent conflict with the right of defendants, which evidence was objected to by the plaintiff as ir relevant, improper, and incompetent, which exceptions were overruled by the court. The defendants, further to establish their southern boundary line, proved that the next lot was claimed by Joaquin de Orsono in [*454 Spanish times, and was used and improved by him; that he parted with his possession and title to Miguel Eslava, who was at the time commissary and storekeeper for the Spanish troops at Mobile, who was in possession when De Vobiscey came to the State, and who has been controverting the right of Farmer's heirs ever since, and that his heirs are now in possession of the said lot, and have been for more than twelve years. The defendants proved that their claim to the possession was not disputed by said Eslava or his heirs; further, the defendants produced the book of translated Spanish records, from the County Court of Mobile County, and offered to read a deed from Francis Fontanella to Joaquin de Orsono, on record in said book, for the lot south, calling for the bakehouse lot as the northern boundary, bearing date in 1801, and a copy of which is attached as part of this record. The plaintiff's counsel objected to this deed because the same was irrelevant, and incompetent, and because there was no evidence that the same had ever been offered to any commissioner appointed under the acts of Congress for the examination of private land claims, under the treaty between the United States and France. The court overruled the objections and the deed The court overruled the objection, and suf- was read to the jury, to which the plaintiff exfered the depositions to be read, to which the cepts. The French grant to Grondel, calling plaintiff excepts. The defendants called a for the boulangerie du roi for its northern number of witnesses, and examined them as to boundary, was before the jury, and read by dethe marks and memorials that existed of the fendants counsel. There was no evidence that bakehouse lot, as it was used and occupied in the claim to possession was eyer disputed by Spanish times, and as to those which remained Eslava or his heirs, but there was evidence after the departure of the Spanish government that the corporation, shortly after they took (none of which appeared in the patent under possession of the lot (as testified by Josiah Wilwhich the plaintiffs claimed, either as land-kins, who was a member of the corporation at marks or otherwise, nor are they now visible, the time), procured the fence that bounded the nor did any of the witnesses swear that they bakehouse lot on the south to be moved in the were the lines of the lot aforesaid, nor was it night-time, some thirty or thirty-five feet south, proved who put them there, or when they upon the premises claimed by the plaintiff, were put there), and proved the facts of the while the said Vobiscey, one of the heirs of possession by the adjoining proprietors, Joa- Farmer, was in possession thereof. This was quin de Orsono and Miguel Eslava, in Spanish the substance of all the evidence given, before times; and that in 1824, when the lot was taken the jury retired to consult on their verdict. by the defendants, the mayor and aldermen of The court read to the jury, as a part of its said city leased a portion to third persons, with charge, a statement and opinion of the Supreme out objection by the plaintiff's lessors, or the Court of the State of Alabama, in this same heirs of Eslava, that the witnesses knew of case, reversing the judgment heretofore render(four of these witnesses were members of the ed in this court in favor of the plaintiff, which corporation in 1824), both of whom claimed the statement and opinion is in these words and lot south and bounding on the king's bake- figures (see the manuscript hereto appended, house, and that no suit had been brought be-marked A), and instructed the jury, that the "The defendants produced no official survey nor patent from the land office for the lot, but relied on said act alone. To establish the boundaries of the said lot, they had the depositions of Catharine Walters, Thaddeus Sandford, and Nicholas Weeks, taken by commission issued and executed regularly, which said depositions are hereto attached as a part of this record. The plaintiff objected to the reading of the depositions, because the evidence was ir relevant, incompetent, and improper under the issue, and went to contradict, to vary, and to change the legal import and terms of the patent introduced by the plaintiff. James Magoffin, and certain proceedings of the said statement and opinion were the correct and true law of the case, to which the plaintiff excepted. The court in its charge to the jury further instructed them, that the Act of Congress of the 26th May, 1824, conferred upon the defendants as perfect and conclusive a title, and their claim and title to the bakehouse lot 455*] *was precisely equal in every respect under said act, as the plaintiff's title was under the patent on which he claimed, and was of equal dignity with the same. After the charge had been delivered by the court to the jury, and before they retired from the box, the plaint iff requested the court to instruct the jury, that the Act of Congress of the 26th May, 1824. granted to the said defendants the bakehouse lot as a mere donation lot, and that the register and receiver at St. Stephen's were authorized. under the Act of Congress of the 8th May, 1822, and other acts of Congress, to direct the manner and mode of surveying and making the location and division between these parties; and having done so, no parol evidence is com petent to set aside, to vary, or change the location so made under their direction and set forth in the patent; which instruction the court refused to give, and to which the plaintiff excepts. The plaintiff further requested the court to instruct the jury, that no survey, plat, or other description of the premises in question, can outweigh or supersede the survey set forth in the patent under which the plaintiff claims, unless it be shown by the defendants in a patent, or an instrument of evidence of equal grade and authority with a patent; which instruction the court refused to give, and to which the plaintiff by his attorney excepts. To all which "The defendants' title is inferior. The patcharges and refusals to charge, the plaintiff by ent bears date in 1837; the terms of renunciatheir counsel excepts, and prays that his exception are in presenti, and no evidence of title tions may be sealed and made a part of the prior to 1824 is presented. record, which is done accordingly. "G. BRAGG. [SEAL.]" The following is the extract from the opinion of the Supreme Court of Alabama, which was declared, in the above exception, to be the law of the case: MAYOR AND ALDERMEN OF MOBILE v. "1. The power given to the registers and receivers, by the different acts of Congress, to determine between conflicting and interfering claims, and to direct the manner of locating and surveying them, applies only to confirma tions of imperfect grants by the former proprietors of the country. These officers have, therefore, no power to locate and direct the survey of a disputed line, where one of the parties claims by virtue of a complete and unconditional grant, as in the case of the donation to the corporation of Mobile of the hospital and bakehouse lots by the Act of the 26th May, 1824. "Error to the Circuit Court of Mobile. Eject ment by the defendants in error against the plaintiffs in error. 46 The plaintiff below, to sustain his case, in456*] troduced in evidence *a patent from the United States to the lessors of the plaintiff, for certain lands in the city of Mobile, and proved that the premises sued for were within the lines of the patent. The plaintiff also read the deposition of "Mr. Campbell, for the plaintiff in error: "The title of the plaintiff in error arises under the Act of 26th May, 1824, by which the bakehouse lot is vested in him. This act amounts to a complete grant, and any question arising upon it is a judicial, and not a political question. What lands are included in the grant is not a question for the land office, but the court. (6 Cranch, 128; 8 Io., 244, 249; 6 Peters, 741; 12 lb., 454; 14 lb., 414; 3 Dall., 456.) The register and receiver at St. Stephen's were not authorized to settle conflicting boundaries. Their power is exhausted by the settlement of the question of location for the purposes of the land office. Whether that location is accurate, so far as third persons who claim by grant previous to the act of location are involved, is a question which can only be settled by the parties themselves, or by courts of justice. (Instructions and opinions of the land office, Part 1445, secs. 5, 6; 6 Peters, 735.) Mr. Phillips, for the defendants in error: The title of the heirs of Farmer is derived from the Act of *1822. Under that act, [*457 the certificate of the register and receiver was made and confirmed by Congress, and the plat of survey made the title. It is therefore older than that of the plaintiff in error, which commenced in 1824. "The effort now is, to show that the north line, as fixed by the plat of survey confirmed by the Act of 1822, was too far to the north. If, instead of being specifically located, the confirmed report had described it generally as the lot of Farmer's heirs, and in 1824 the dona tion to the plaintiff as the lot known in Spanish times as the king's bakehouse lot,' reserving the rights of others, under such circumstances, an inquiry ordered by the common grantor, and his decision thereon as to the boundary, ought to be conclusive, as a mere declaration of a fact which always existed; the more especially as the opposite party submitted to the jurisdiction, examined witnesses, and contested | laws for that purpose, unless the parties intertheir rights. ested should voluntarily submit to some other mode. "ORMOND, J.. By the Act of the 26th May, 1824, the United States granted to the mayor and aldermen of the city of Mobile all right and claim of the United States to the lots known as the hospital and bakehouse lots, containing about three fourths of an acre in the city of Mobile.' (1 Land Laws, 398.) "On the 14th of November, 1837, a patent issued from the General Land Office in favor of the heirs of Robert Farmer, upon a confirma tion of a claim made by virtue of the Act of the 8th May, 1822 (1 Land Laws, 352); which, among other designated boundaries, calls for the south boundary of the bakehouse lot' as one of the boundary lines of the land conveyed by the patent; and the controversy in this case is, What is the south boundary of the bake house lot? To establish this boundary, the plaintiffs rely upon a decision made by the reg ister and receiver at St. Stephen's, which they insisted, and the court below held, to be conclusive of the fact. "The right of these officers to determine this question is attempted to be derived from the various acts of Congress giving them power to determine between conflicting and interfering claims, and also to direct the manner of lo cating and surveying the lands the title to which had been confirmed. (See Land Laws, Part 1, 348, 352, and 455, and other acts, to which these are supplementary.) There can be no doubt that Congress may attach to a pure dona tion such terms as it pleases, and may invest the subordinate officers of the United States with power to determine questions of fact, and to ascertain and settle conflicting claims. Of this the different pre-emption laws furnish examples. Whether it has such power in relation to the confirmation of imperfect titles de 458*] rived from the former *proprietors of the country, is a question which does not arise in this case. | "The power conferred on the registers and receivers to decide upon conflicting claims relates only to the confirmation of imperfect titles | derived from the French, British, and Spanish governments; but the grant of the bakehouse lot to the corporation of Mobile was an unconditional donation of all right and title of the United States in and to the thing granted, which immediately passed to the grantee. The previous acts of Congress, therefore, giving to the receiver and register power to ascertain and settle the boundaries of conflicting confirmed claims have no application, and it was not competent for Congress to attach such a condition to it subsequently, and it has made no such attempt. The description of the thing granted in the act is sufficient to distinguish it from other lots in the city, and by the aid of extrinsic testimony its boundaries may be ascertained. (Blake v. Doherty, 5 Wheaton, 359.) "By the treaty, the United States acquired all the title of the crown of Spain to these lots as public property. The question then is, What was the boundary of these lots in Spanish times? This is a question of fact, and if a controversy should arise in relation thereto between the corporation and others claiming title to the adjoining lots, it can only be settled by those tribunals appointed by the constitution and 44 We are relieved in this case from the necessity of considering whether the recital in the patent of Farmer's heirs of the boundary line would be conclusive, because the patent does not profess to locate the north boundary line other than by calling for the south boundary of the bakehouse lot.' The precise location must therefore be ascertained by testimony, showing where the south line was when in the occupancy of the crown of Spain. Such as its limits then were, it passed by the treaty to the United States, and with those limits it was granted to the corporation. "It results from this examination that the court erred in determining that the decision of the register was evidence of the boundary line of the bakehouse lot, and its judgment is therefore reversed, and the cause remanded." The above was the extract from the opinion of the Supreme Court of Alabama, which was given in charge to the jury by the Circuit Court of Mobile County. Under these instructions, the jury found a verdict for the defendant. The case was then *carried to the Su- [*459 preme Court of Alabama, upon the bill of exceptions above recited, and that court affirmed the judgment of the Circuit Court. The plaintiff sued out a writ of error, and brought the case to this court. It was argued by Messrs. Phillips and Coxe for the plaintiff in error, and Messrs. Campbell and Sergeant for the defendants in error. Mr. Phillips, for the plaintiff in error, made the following points: The title of the plaintiff, originating in the French patent to Grondel, was presented by the heirs of Robert Farmer, who claimed to hold under it, to the board of commissioners, and appears in the report of 1816 without any proof of inhabitation or cultivation. (3 State Papers, 32.) This claim is renewed, and appears again in the report of 1820, in the register of claims to lots in the town of Mobile (Vol. III., p. 398, No. 27), when the proof of inhabitation and cultivation seems to have been made. By the Act of 1822, Congress confirmed this claim, reserving to the tribunal organized for that purpose the right "to direct the manner in which all lands confirmed by this act shall be located and surveyed, and to decide between the parties in all conflicting and interfering claims." (Act of 1822, sec. 5.) The patent which issued upon this claim on the 14th of November, 1837, recites the deposit in the land office of the certificate of the register and receiver, with a plat of survey, under the provisions of the Act of 1822, in favor of the heirs of Farmer, in right of Philip Gonjon de Grondel, being No. 27 in abstract No. 7. The king's bakehouse lot (boulangerie du roi) had been occupied by the Spanish authorities, under what title does not appear, and upon the change of government was regarded as public or unappropriated land. Congress, by the Act of 1824, without asserting any title to the lot, by the most cautious terms vested in the mayor, &c., "all their right and claim to the lot known as the bake |