tem., to whom the petition of Guillemard in behalf of Boisdore's representatives was referred, and who recommended that the survey be made.

L. Bringier, a witness, states, "that he has been a surveyor for upwards of thirty years, and for more than twenty-five years SurveyorGeneral of the State of Louisiana, during which period he has had the records of Spanish surveys in his charge, and had frequent occasion to refer to them, and survey lands in conformity to them; that he understands the Spanish language; and he says that he agrees with Pintado as to the mode of running the lines of the survey. He thinks the description of the grant is sufficient to enable a surveyor to make an accurate survey of it," &c.

Elihu Carver, who says that he is a practical surveyor, on being asked how he would survey a Spanish concession which calls for two points as the front upon the sea-shore or a watercourse, and calls to run in depth to another water-course for quantity, answers that he would run from one of the first points back to the water-course a distance equal to the front given, thence direct to the last point in the front." He says that he has surveyed many Spanish claims, and, except one, he never found the boundaries all round. That he does not pretend to be sufficiently acquainted with the Spanish customs and usages to pronounce upon the claim in question.

B. A. Ludlow states that he is a practical surveyor, and has held the office of Surveyor-General for the district south of Tennessee. He has examined the survey of Boisdoré, and believes 100*] *the survey to be practicable, provided the plantation of Philip Saucier and the Bayou of Mosquito Village can be identified. "The survey should be made," he says, "by finding a straight line between the above-mentioned points, and raising perpendiculars upon said line, at its extremities, extending back to Pearl River," &c. “Exceptions to this rule," he says, "sometimes occur by water-courses or the lines of other claims causing a deviation," &c. He says he is familiar with the sea-shore which constitutes the front of the Boisdoré claim. From his general knowledge of the country, he can see no material difficulty in making the survey of the claim, &c.

ners, would, apparently for several miles, range close along and parallel with the east margin of Pearl River, and consequently conflict with the uniform practice of the location and survey of grants upon all navigable streams and shores."

This is the substance of the evidence in the case in relation to the calls in the grant. And it must be remarked, that all the witnesses, with the exception of Downing, think that the calls of the grant are sufficient to enable a surveyor to mark out the boundaries. Downing supposes that no two surveyors would agree on the beginning corner, or as to the second point and lines called for. But in this he is mistaken. In the first place, the Spanish authorities, who held the calls of the grant sufficient are Miro, the Governor General who issued it, and Morales, the Intendant-General, Trudeau and Pintado, Surveyors-General, and Lozado, the Fiscal Minister. These, when connected with the statements of the above witnesses, would seem to leave little doubt as to the sufficiency of the calls of the grant.

*Upon this question we must not for. [*101 get that we are acting upon a Spanish grant, and are governed by Spanish laws, usages, and customs. And if such a grant were valid under the Spanish government, and there has been no forfeiture of the right, we are bound by the plighted faith of our own government to sustain the grant. And in administering this foreign law, we must ascertain and regard the usages under it, in the acquisition of titles to land. This is a universal principle, respected by all courts, in the administration of justice. Parol evidence must be heard to establish those usages, in addition to what may appear from the action of the local tribunals. In the States of Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and in a large district of country in Ohio, the usages in making entries and surveys of lands constitute the laws of the respective States, the usage of each State differing more or less from that of the others. One instance only will be named as peculiar, perhaps, to Kentucky and Ohio. The holder of a warrant for one thousand acres locates it, and in his survey includes fifteen hundred acres of land, more or less, and yet his survey is held valid. This, to one wholly unacquainted with such a rule of decision, would be thought unreasonable, and might be disregarded; and yet it is a rule of property which no court can reject.

on land titles acquired under a foreign government, of whose language and usages we have comparatively but little knowledge. The Act of Congress of the 26th of May, 1824, revived and applied to these titles by the Act of the 17th of June, 1844, under which we exercise jurisdiction, provides that a claimant under

any French or Spanish grant, concession, warrant, or order of survey, legally made, granted, or issued before the 10th of March, 1804, by the proper authorities, to any person

resident in the Province of Louisiana," &c., "which might have been perfected into a complete title, under and in conformity to the laws, usages, and customs of the government under which the same originated, had not the sovereignty of the country been transferred to the United States, may file his petition," &c. And the proceeding is required to be conducted according to the rules of a court of equity," &c.; and the court is authorized "by a final decree to settle and determine the ques tion of the validity of the title, according to the 102*] law of nations, the stipulations of any treaty, and proceedings under the same, the several acts of Congress in relation thereto, and the laws and ordinances of the government from which it is alleged to have been derived," &c. I will refer to some cases where grants similar to the one under consideration have been held valid by this court. In The United States v. Percheman, 7 Peters, 54, the petitioner asked "two thousand acres of land in the place called Ockliwaha, situated on the margin of St. John's River." Governor Estrada says: "I do grant him the two thousand acres of land which he solicits, in absolute property, in the indicated place." The survey of this land was not executed until the 20th of August, 1819, after the treaty of cession. The title was confirmed by this court.

In the case of The United States v. Clarke, 8 Peters, 446, the petitioner solicited a grant of the quantity of land which the Governor of Florida had thought proper to assign to the water-mills, equivalent to five miles square; which lands he solicits "on the western part of St. John's River, above Black Creek, at a place entirely vacant, known by the name of White Spring." In the grant it is declared, "A title shall be issued comprehending the place and under the boundaries set forth in the petition." This was also confirmed.

In the case of The United States v. Levi, 8 Peters, 479, the grant was "for twenty-five thousand acres of land, south of the place known by the name of Spring Garden, in this form: twelve thousand acres of them, adjoining the lake or pond called Second, and known by the name of Valdes, and the remaining thirteen thousand acres on the pond farther above the preceding, known by the name of Long Pond, the whole west of the River St. John." The survey was executed on the 2d of August, 1819. This court confirmed the title. Another grant in the same case was for "seven thousand four hundred acres, lying on a stream running from the west, and entering the River St. John, and called in English the Big Spring, about twenty-five miles south of St. George's Lake, one of the fronts of the said tract to be on St. John's River, and to be divided in two parts by the stream aforesaid." This survey was made on the 5th of April, 1821. The title was

confirmed.

In the same case another grant, which was confirmed by this court, was for eight thousand acres, being part of a larger parcel containing ten thousand acres, &c., five thousand of them in a hummock to be found five or six miles east of Spring garden, and the remaining five thousand west of the River St. John, contiguous to a creek called Black Creek, near Flem: ing's Island and the pond called Doctor's Lake."

*Another grant in the same case was [*103 confirmed for "twenty thousand acres," described as 'lying "in the hummocks known under the names of Cuscowillo and Chachala, situate west of the place of the River St. John's where there was a store of the house of Panton, Leslie & Co., and about thirty miles from it." Similar citations might be made from any of our reports of the last fifteen or twenty years, but the above are sufficient to show the course of the Spanish authorities in granting lands, and the decision of this court upon such grants. Many of the surveys, it will be observed, were made under Spanish authority, after Florida was ceded to the United States.

The reader, if anyone shall read the above citations and the grant of Boisdoré, will be struck with the much greater certainty in the calls of his grant, than in the calls of any one of the grants above stated. And yet they were confirmed, and his is rejected for want of certainty. By virtue of what law this greater certainty is now required in the calls of a grant I am not able to determine. In my own mind I am assured it cannot be under the Spanish law. And I am greatly mistaken if our decision on Spanish titles must not rest on Spanish law.

The tract claimed is said in the argument to be large. Of what importance is that to a court which deals with established principles ? In this respect we can exercise no discretion. If the claim of Boisdoré was property under the Spanish government, it is protected by the treaty. That it was so considered under the usages and acts of the Spanish government, to my mind, is clear. I therefore dissent from the judgment of the court.

This cause came on to be heard on the tran

script of the record from the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of Mississippi, and was argued by counsel; on consideration whereof, it is the opinion of this court, that the grant of petitioners had no iden tity, and cannot be surveyed so as to [*104 give it boundaries. And second, if it could be identified, that no occupation and inhabita tion were ever taken according to the terms of the grant, and therefore the claim is without equity according to the laws of Spain. Where upon it is now here ordered, adjudged and de creed by this court, that the decree of the said District Court in this cause be, and the same is hereby reversed; and that this cause be, and the same is hereby remanded to the said District Court, with directions to dismiss the peti tion of the claimants in this cause.

S. C., 7 How., 658; 8 How., 113. 256, 259; 17 How., 555, 568, 570; 18 How., 13: 8 Otto, Cited-11 How., 128; 12 How., 224, 434; 13 How.. 401; 11 Otto, 707; Hemp., 400-404.

EVARISTE BLANC, Plaintiff in Error,

v.

GEORGE W. LAFAYETTE AND JOHN HAGAN.

In 1816 the register and receiver of a land-office, acting under the authority of a law, reported as follows: "We are of opinion that all the claims included under the second species of the first class are already confirmed by the Act of Congress of the 12th of April, 1814."

In 1830 Congress passed an act (3 Stat. at Large, 573) confirming all those claims which were recommended in the report for confirmation.

But where the commissioners erred in placing a claim in the second species of the first class, and erred in supposing that such a claim was already confirmed by the Act of 1814, these errors prevent the Act of 1820 from confirming the claim. It is consequently invalid.

THIS

HIS case was brought up from the Supreme Court of Louisiana, by a writ of error issued under the twenty-fifth section of the Judiciary Act.

By agreement of counsel in the State court, many original documents were used in the trial in the Supreme Court of Louisiana, which were left out of the record when it was transmitted to this court. It did not, therefore, furbish all the facts necessary for a complete statement of the case, which, however, have been taken from other authentic sources.

It was a conflict between a patent issued for some land near New Orleans to General Lafayette, in 1825, and a claim advanced by Blanc under an old Spanish alleged grant. If the latter was not good, the patent to Lafayette covered the land in dispute. Blanc claimed under Liotaud.

On the 23d of May, 1801, Louis Liotaud presented a petition to the Intendant Morales, praying that a tract of public land be granted to him, having six arpents front on the left bank of Canal Carondelet, with the ordinary depth, if there should be such a depth vacant, being bounded on the one side by the land of Carlos Guardiola, and on all the other sides by 105*] *public land. He states as a reason which entitled him to the favorable notice of the intendant, that his object was to establish a large garden and drain the land, which would be advantageous to the public, and contribute to the salubrity of the city. And he bound himself to conform to the regulations relating to grants of land.

On this petition an order was made on February 11, 1802, which is attested by Carlos Ximenes, the notary, in these words: Vistos: pasese este expediente al agrimensor gnl. Don Carlos Trudeau para que en vista de el informe lo conbeniente." "Let this petition be referred to the Surveyor-General, Don Carlos Trudeau, in order that he may report his opinion thereon."

These appeared to be all the papers to support the claim. No survey was ever made, nor any report upon the petition.

On the 12th of April, 1814, Congress passed an act (1 Land Laws, 242) confirming certain claims in Louisiana. The title of the act is, "An Act for the final adjustment of land titles in the State of Louisiana and Territory of Missouri." By it certain claims were confirmed

1802, of which proceedings the accompanying document is a true copy, as taken from the original in the register's office for the eastern district of Louisiara."

On the 20th of November, 1816, the com-, missioners made their report, and noticed this claim as follows:

"Louis Liotaud claims a tract of land situated in the County of Orleans, on the left bank of the Canal Carondelet, leading to the Bayou St. John, containing six arpents in front and forty in depth, and bounded on one side by lands, granted by the Spanish government to Carlos Guardiola, and on the other side by vacant lands. This tract of land is claimed by virtue of an order of survey dated in the year 1802."

The commissioners included this claim in the second species of the first class of claims, on which the board reported as follows: "We are of opinion that all the claims included under the second species of the first class are already confirmed by the Act of Congress of the 12th of April, 1814.

On the 16th of January, 1817, the Commissioner of the General Land Office transmitted this report to Congress, and on the 11th of May, 1820, Congress passed an act (3 Stat. at Large, 573), entitled "An Act supplementary to the several acts for the adjustment of land claims in the State of Louisiana.'

66

*The first section of this act was as [*106 follows: That the claims for lands within the eastern district of the State of Louisiana, described by the register and receiver of the said district in their report to the Commissioner of the General Land Office bearing date on the 20th of November, 1816, and recommended in the said report for confirmation, be, and the same are hereby confirmed against any claim on the part of the United States."

So the matter stood until the year 1825, when, as has been already mentioned, a patent was issued to General Lafayette, which included the land claimed by Liotaud.

On the 1st of May, 1841, George Washington Lafayette, residing in France, and John Hagan, residing at New Orleans, brought a petitory action against Evariste Blanc, who claimed under Liotaud, The defendant alleged that he then was, and had been for more than a year before the commencement of the suit, in quiet possession of the land, and denied the plaintiffs' possession or right of possession. He also pleaded the prescription of twenty and thirty years.

In May, 1846, the cause on for trial in the Parish Court in and for the Parish and City of New Orleans, when there was a judgment for the defendant. The plaintiffs appealed to the Supreme Court of Louisiana, by which, in January, 1848, the judgment of the Parish Court was reversed; and to review this decision, upon the ground that his claim was confirmed by an Act of Congress, Blanc sued out a writ of error, and brought the case up to this court.