Слике страница
PDF
ePub

plles as well to pre-emptions as to other purchases | continued to occupy the post until the month of of public lands.

sents.

It.

The act of the Legislature of Illinois, giving a right to the holder of a register's certificate of the entry of public lands to recover possession of such lands in an action of ejectment, does not apply to cases where a paramount title to the lands is in the hands of the defendant, or of those he repreThe exception in the law of Illinois applies to cases in which the United States have not parted with the title to the land, by granting a patent for A State has a perfect right to legislate as she may please in regard to the remedies to be prosecuted in her courts, and to regulate the disposition of the property of her citizens, by descent, devise, or allenation. But Congress are invested, by the Constitution, with the power of disposing of the public land, and making needful rules and regulations respecting It. Where a patent has not been issued for a part of the public lands, a State has no power to declare any title, less than a patent, valid against a claim of the United States to the land, or against a title held under a patent granted by the United States. Whenever the question in any court, State or federal, is whether the title to property which had belonged to the United States has passed, that question must be resolved by the laws of the United States. But whenever the property has passed, according to those laws, then the property like all other in the State, is subject to State legislation; so far as that legislation is consistent with the admission that the title passed and vested according to the laws of the United States. Every tribunal acting judicially, whilst acting within the sphere of its jurisdiction, where no appellate tribunal is created, its judgment is final; and even where there is such an appellate power, their judgment is conclusive where It only comes collaterally in question, so long as it is unreversed. But directly the reverse is true, in relation to the judgment of any court acting beyond the pale of Its authority. The principle is concisely and accurately stated by this court in the case of Elliott et al. v. Peirsol et al. 1 Peters, 840.

ERROR to the Superior Court of the State of

Illinois.

In the Circuit Court of Cook County in the State of Illinois, an action of ejectment was commenced in February, 1836, by John Jackson, on the demise of Murray M'Connel, against De la Fayette Wilcox, for the recovery of a part of the military post of Fort Dearborn, at Chicago, in the State of Illinois; the defendant being then in possession of the premises as the commander of the post. The defendant appeared and after the usual pleadings, the cause was brought to trial in October, 1836, and submitted to the court on an agreed statement of facts, which was to be taken as if found as a special verdict.

The premises sued for are part of fractional section 10, in township 39, north of range 14, east of the 3d principal meridian, in the County of Cook and State of Illinois, and embrace the military post called Fort Dearborn, of which post, at the time of the bringing of this suit and the service of the declaration therein, the said defendant, De la Fayette Wilcox, was in the possession of the said prem500*] ises, and was the commanding officer under the authority of the United States; which post was established by the United States in 1804, and was thereafter occupied by the troops of the United States till August 16, 1812, when the troops were massacred, and the post taken by the enemies of the country. It was reOccupied by the troops on the 4th of July, 1816, in which year the United States caused to be built upon the fractional section, No. 10, T. 39, N. R. 14 east, some factory-houses for the use of the Indian Department. The troops

May, 1823, when it was evacuated by order of the government, and was left in possession of Dr. A. Wolcott, Indian Agent at Chicago.

On the 19th of August, in the year 1828, the military post was again occupied by the troops of the government, acting under the order of the Secretary of War, as one of the military posts of the United States. The post was again evacuated by the troops of the government in the month of May, 1831, though the government never gave up the possession of the military post, called Fort Dearborn, but left the same in the possession of one Oliver Newberry, who authorized George Dole to take and keep the same in repair; which said Dole accordingly did. Said post was again occupied by the troops of the government in June, 1832, under the command of Major Whistler, an officer in the Army of the United States. At the time Major Whistler took possession, being at the time of the war with the Sac and Fox Indians, several hundred persons were in the fort for security against the Indians. The military post has been occupied by the troops, and was generally known at Chicago to be so occupied from that date up to the commencement of this suit, and is still used for that purpose.

When the military post was evacuated in 1831, the quartermaster at the post, acting under orders, sold a greater part of the movable property, in and about the garrison, belonging to the government, but sold none of the buildings belonging to the military post.

In the year 1817, John Baptiste Beaubean bought of one John Dean, who was an army contractor at the post, a house built upon said land, by the said Dean, and gave him therefor one thousand dollars; attached to the house was an inclosure used and occupied by said Dean as a garden and field, and Mr. Beaubean then took possession of the house and inclosure, and continued in possession, cultivating a part of the inclosure every year, from the year 1817 to the 17th of June, 1836.

In 1823, the factory-houses built at the post upon the tract of land, were by order of the Secretary of the Treasury sold, and Capt. Henry Whiting became the purchaser thereof. In the same year Whiting sold said improvements to the American Fur Company, and the company, for the sum of five hundred dollars, sold to said Beaubean, who took possession thereof, and continued to occupy the same, together with a part of the quarter section of land, to the date of the commence- [*501 ment of this suit. Mr. Beaubean continued to occupy said houses and inclosure upon the land, and to cultivate a part of the land unmolested and undisturbed by any person whatever, from the year 1817 up to the day of the commencement of this suit.

The land in question was surveyed by the government in the year 1821.

Since the military post was re-occupied by the United States troops in 1832, as before stated, to wit, before the first day of May, 1834, the United States built a light-house upon part of the land, and have kept constantly inclosed and cultivated for the use of the said garrison at least twenty acres of said land. The United States troops, by order and consent of the gov

ernment, have also used and occupied various | 1830, Congress passed a law granting the right other government lands near and adjoining the quarter section of land.

On the 2d of September, 1824, Dr. A. Wolcott, Indian Agent, then stationed at Chicago, wrote the following letter to the Secretary of War of the United States, to wit: "Fort Dearborn, Chicago, Sept. 2, 1824.

"Sir: I have the honor to suggest to your consideration the propriety of making a reservation of this post and the fraction on which it is situated, for the use of this agency. It is very convenient for that purpose, as the quarters afford sufficient accommodation for all the persons in the employ of the agency, and the storehouses are safe and commodious places for the provisions and other property that may be in charge of the agent. The buildings and other property, by being in possession of a public officer, will be preserved for public use, should it ever be necessary to occupy them again with a military force.

"As to the size of the fraction I am not certain, but I think it contains about sixty acres; a considerable greater tract than that is under fence; but that would be abundantly sufficient for the use of the agency, and contains all the buildings attached to the fort, such as a mill, barn, stable, etc., which it would be desirable to preserve.

"I have the honor to be, etc.,

"Alexander Wolcott, Jun., "Indian Agent. "Hon. J. C. Calhoun, Secretary of War." Which letter John C. Calhoun, then Secretary of War of the United States, on the 30th of September, 1824, inclosed with the following note to George Graham, Esq., Commissioner of the General Land Office of the United States.

"Department of War, 30th Sept., 1824. "Sir: I enclose herewith a copy of a letter from Dr. Wolcott, Indian Agent at Chicago, and request you will direct a reservation to be made for the use of the Indian Department at that post, agreeably to his suggestions. I have the honor to be, etc.

J. C. Calhoun. "George Graham, Esq.,_ Commissioner of the General Land Office, Treasury Department." 502*] *And thereupon, on the first day of October, 1824, George Graham, then commissioner of the land office, addressed a letter in reply to the Secretary of War, at the same time subjoining to the letter of the said Secretary of War, this note, to wit: "Answered the first of October, 1824, and the frac. Sec. 10, T. 39, N. R. 14 E. colored and marked on the map, as reserved for military purposes." The letter in reply is as follows, to wit: General Land Office, 1st of October, 1824. "Sir: In compliance with your request, I have directed that the fractional section 10, Township 39, N. R. 14 E., containing 57-50 acres, and within which Fort Dearborn is situated, should be reserved from sale for military purposes. I am, etc. George Graham.

"Hon J. C. Calhoun, Secretary of War."

Which fractional section, mentioned in the foregoing letter of George Graham, embraces the premises sued for, and Fort Dearborn, occupied by the United States as aforesaid.

After the writing and receipt of the letters aforesaid, to wit, on the 29th day of May,

of pre-emption upon the public lands to every person who cultivated any part of a quarter section of said land in 1829, and was in the actual possession thereof on the 29th day of May, 1830; but which pre-emption right does not extend to any land which is reserved from sale by act of Congress, or by order of the President, or which may have been appropriated for any purpose whatsoever, or for the use of the United States, or either of the States in which any of the public lands may be situated. Mr. Beaubean having cultivated a part of F section in 1829, and having been in possession of a part so cultivated on the 29th day of May, 1830; on the 7th day of May, 1831, made application to the register and receiver of the United States land office at Palestine, in Illinois, and offered to prove a pre-emption upon the land, and purchase the same at private sale, under the pre-emption law, which claim of pre-emption upon the land was not by the register and receiver at Palestine allowed to Mr. Beaubean.

One Robert Kenzie, on the 7th day of May, 1831, made application to the register and receiver of the land office to be allowed to enter at private sale a part of the same fractional section 10; and the claim by the said register and receiver was then passed and allowed, and Robert Kenzie was then permitted to enter at private sale, under pre-emption law, the north fraction of fractional section 10.

After the application of Mr. Beaubean to the register and receiver at Palestine as aforesaid, to wit, on the 7th and 12th of May, 1831, Joseph Kitchell, then Register of the Land Office, addressed letters to Elijah Hayward, Esq., then Commissioner of the General Land Office of the United States, informing him of the application of the said Beaubean to enter said S. W. F. section 10, *town- [*503 ship 39, north of range 14 east, under the Preemption Act; and on the 2d of November, 1831, Mr. Beaubean addressed a letter to the said Hayward, Commissioner, etc., stating that in the month of May preceding he had filed in the office at Palestine aforesaid, proof of his right of pre-emption to the land, and insisting that he was entitled to have the claim allowed; and in answer thereto was informed by the commissioner by letter, dated the 2d of February, 1832, that said southwest quarter of said fractional section 10, T. 39, N. R. 14 E. was reserved for military purposes. On the 1st of October, 1824, several other persons, in behalf of said Beaubean, after his application as aforesaid, prior to the said 2d of February, 1832, made inquiry by letter of said commissioner touching the same, and were informed by the commissioner that the tract of land had been reserved for military purposes, and said Beaubean's application as aforesaid was rejected.

Afterwards, to wit, on the 19th day of June, 1834, Congress passed an Act to revive the preemption law of the 29th of May, 1830. by the first section of which act is provided that every settler or occupant of the public lands prior to the passage of this act, who is now in possession, and cultivated any part thereof in 1833. shall be entitled to all the benefits and privileges of the Act entitled "An Act to grant pre

emption rights to settlers on public lands," ap- | the said proclamation mentioned, marking and proved 29th May, 1830, and the Act is hereby revived, and shall continue in force two years from the passage of this act and no longer: and Mr. Beaubean having cultivated a part of the fractional quarter of section 10 in 1833, and having been in the actual possession and occupancy of the part, so by him cultivated, on the 19th day of June, 1834, the date of the passage of the last recited law, did, in the month of July, 1834, apply to the register and receiver of the United States land office at Danville, in Illinois, for leave to prove a pre-emption, and enter the fractional quarter under the last recited act; which application and claim of Beaubean was rejected by the said register and receiver at Danville aforesaid, who informed Beaubean that said land was reserved for military purposes.

coloring upon said plat certain lands to be reserved from sale; but neither the fractional section 10, or any of the divisions thereof, were so marked or colored to be reserved from sale. At the bottom of the President's proclamation is a general notice requiring all persons who claim the right of pre-emption to any of the lands in the proclamation mentioned, to appear before the register and receiver of the land office before the day appointed by said proclamation for the sale of said lands, and prove their pre-emption; and after the notice the said John Baptiste Beaubean did, on the 28th day of May, 1835, appear before the register and receiver of the land office at Chicago, there prove to the satisfaction of the said register and receiver that he was entitled to the right of pre-emption to the said southwest fracAfter the writing of the letters by Dr. Wol- tional quarter of fractional section 10, and Mr. cott, Indian Agent, and J. C. Calhoun, Secre- Beaubean did, on the 28th day of May, 1835, tary of War, and George Graham, Commission-enter and purchase at private sale of the Uniter of the General Land Office, hereinbefore re-ed States and of the register of said land office, ferred to and set forth, to wit, on the 26th day the southwest fractional section 10, and then of June, 1834, Congress, by a law approved and there paid to the receiver of said land upon that day, created two additional land dis-office one dollar and twenty-five cents per acre, tricts in Illinois; one called northwest and the in full payment for said land, and obtained other the northeast land districts of the State from the receiver aforesaid the following reof Illinois, and the last-mentioned district in-ceipt, to wit: cludes the land in controversy.

By the fourth section of said Act, it is provided that the President shall be authorized, so soon as the survey shall be completed, "to cause to be offered for sale, in the manner prescribed by law, all the lands lying in said land district at the land offices, in the respective districts in which the lands so offered is embraced, reserving only section 16 in each township, the tract reserved for the village of Galena; such other tracts as have been granted to 504*] individuals and the State of Illinois, and such reservation as the President shall deem necessary to retain for military posts; any law of Congress heretofore existing to the contrary notwithstanding."

It is further provided by said act that there "shall be established in each of said land districts a land office at such time and place as the President may deem necessary;" and that a land office was established in said northeast land district before the 1st of May, 1835, which is the land office at Chicago.

"Land once, at Chicago, Illinois,

28th

"Pre-emption Act, 19th June, 1834.

"No. 6. Received of John Baptiste Beaubean, of Cook County, Illinois, the sum of ninety-four dollars and sixty-one cents, being in full payment for the southwest [*505 fractional quarter of section No. 10, in township No. 39, north of range No. 14, east of the third principal meridian, containing seventyfive acres and sixty-nine hundredths of an acre, at the rate of $1.25 per acre. "94.61,-Michigan paper.

"E. D. Taylor, Receiver." Mr. Beaubean also obtained from the register of the last-mentioned land office a certificate in the words and figures following, to wit:

"Land Office at Chicago, Illinois,}

May 28th,

"No. 6. It is hereby certified that, in pursuance of law, John Baptiste Beaubean, of Cook County, State of Illinois, on this day purchased of the register of this office the lot After the passage of the act, and after the or southwest fractional quarter of section numland office aforesaid was established, the Pres- ber ten, in township number 39, north of range ident of the United States, on the 12th day of fourteen east, containing seventy-five and sixFebruary, 1835, made and published his procla- ty-nine hundredths acres, at the rate of one mation directing various lands in said north- dollar and twenty-five cents per acre, amounteastern land district to be sold at said land ing to ninety-four dollars and seventy-five office at Chicago. Among said lands so pro- cents, for which the said John Baptiste Beauclaimed for sale, is the said fractional section bean has made payment in full as required 10, in township 39, N. R. 14 E. unless the same by law. Now, therefore, be it known, that on is excepted by the general exception in said the presentation of this certificate to the Comproclamation, in the words following, to wit: missioner of the General Land Office, the said The lands reserved by law for the use of John Baptiste Beaubean shall be entitled to schools, and for other purposes, will be exclud-receive a patent for the lot above described. ed from the sale."

The lands were directed by the proclamation to be sold at Chicago land office aforesaid, on the 15th day of June, 1835, and before the said 15th day of June, to wit, in the month of April, 1835, the Commissioner of the General Land Office caused to be transmitted to said land of fice at Chicago the extended plat of the land in

"James Whitlock, Register. "Pre-emption Act, 1834."

Which certificate was presented to the Commissioner of the General Land Office, and filed in the office.

Afterwards, to wit, on the 4th day of March, 1836, the register of the said land office at Chicago made, signed, and delivered to Mr. Beau

bean his certificate in the words and figures following, to wit:

"Land Office, Chicago, Illinois.

and occupies the same not in his own right, but as an officer of the Army of the United States only, in the command of the post, acting under order of the Secretary of War, and of his superior officer, and of the United States.

After the purchase of the said land by Mr. Beaubean, as hereinbefore stated, to wit, on the sixth day of February, 1836, he, the said Beaubean, by deed duly executed, acknowledged, and recorded, according to the laws of the said State of Illinois, for and in consideration of the sum of dollars therein expressed, sold and conveyed the said premises, in the declaration mentioned, to Murray M'Connel, the lessor of the plaintiff; who purchased with a knowledge that a controversy existed between Mr. Beaubean and the government about said land.

"I, James Whitlock, register of the land of fice at Chicago, in the State of Illinois, do hereby certify that John Baptiste Beaubean, of the town of Chicago and State of Illinois, did, on the 28th day of May, in the year of our Lord, 1835, under and by virtue of an Act of Congress, passed on the 19th day of June, 1834, entitled, An Act to revive an act granting pre-emption rights to settlers on the public lands,' passed the 29th day of May, 1830, prove to the satisfaction of the register and receiver that the said Beaubean was entitled to the right of pre-emption under said Act of the 19th of June, 1834, to the southwest fractional quarter of fractional section number ten, in township 39, north of range number fourteen east, It is further admitted that after the purchase and the said Beaubean did then enter and pur- of the land by J. B. Beaubean, as hereinbefore chase of the United States and of the register stated, Elijah Hayward, Esq., then Commisof said office the said southwest fractional sioner of the General Land Office, on the 31st quarter of fractional section number ten, in of July, 1835, addressed a letter to the register township number thirty-nine, north of range and receiver of the land office *at Chi- [*507 number fourteen east, of the third principal cago, stating that it had been represented meridian, situated in the district of lands of- to the department that the land officers fered for sale at the land office at Chicago at Chicago had permitted to be sold said aforesaid, and is included in the northeast land southwest fractional section 10, T. 39, N. 506*] district of the State of Illinois, which R. 14 E., including the site of Fort Deartract of land contains seventy-five acres and sixty-nine hundredths of an acre; for which tract of land he, the said Beaubean, paid the sum of ninety-four dollars and sixty-one cents, being one dollar and twenty-five cents per acre in full payment for the same.

"All of which appears by the papers on file in said land office, and by the maps, plats, and records of said office now here.

"Given under my hand, as register as aforesaid, at the land office aforesaid, this 4th day of March, in the year of our Lord 1836.

"James Whitlock, Register." Afterwards, to wit, on the 2d day of July, 1836, Congress passed an Act entitled "An Act to confirm the sales of public lands in certain cases," by the second section of which it is provided that "in all cases where any entry has been made under the pre-emption laws, pursuant to instructions sent to the register and receiver from the Treasury Department, and the proceedings have been in all other respects fair and regular, such entries and sales are hereby confirmed, and patents shall be issued thereon as in other cases."

It is admitted that the defendant, Wilcox. at the commencement of this suit, and at the time of the service of the declaration in ejectment herein, was in the occupancy and possession of the premises in said declaration mentioned, which is a stockade of pickets, including some wooden buildings in which the soldiers and officers reside, and that the rents and profits of said premises then were, and still are of the value of three dollars per month.

It is also admitted that said defendant Wilcox then was, and still is an officer in the United States Army, and was ordered into possession and command of the military post on the premises, together with the United States troops under his command, by order of the Secretary of War of the United States; and that said Wilcox claims no right of ownership in himself to the land. but is in possession of

born, and informing them that such sale is invalid in consequence of the reservation and appropriation of said fraction for military purposes, since the year 1824, and directing the receiver to refund to Mr. Beaubean the amount of the purchase money paid thereon, which money was tendered by the receiver to Mr. Beaubean, who refused to receive the same.

On the 23d of January, in the year 1834, Elijah Hayward, then Commissioner of the General Land Office, addressed a note to the Hon. Lewis Cass, then Secretary of War of the United States, inclosing a copy of the letter of the 30th of September, 1824, from the then Secretary of War, Mr. Calhoun, requesting that said tract of land at Chicago, upon which Fort Dearborn was situated, might be reserved for the Indian Department, and a copy of the Commissioner Graham's reply, of the 1st of October, 1824, hereinbefore set forth, stating that he had directed the land to be reserved for military purposes, and after stating that the tract of land in question, designated as fractional section 10, T. 39, N. R. 14 E. was claimed under the act of Con. gress granting pre-emption rights; and Mr. Commissioner Hayward then requested said Secretary Cass to advise the office whether it was then (to wit, on the 23d of January, 1834) needed by the War Department, and if so, whether it is considered a military reser vation, or as a reservation for the use of the Indian Department; and on the 21st of March, 1834, the Secretary of War addressed a letter in answer to the inquiry of the Commissioner. informing him that the reservation at Chicago, alluded to in the letter of the Commissioner, of the 23d January, 1834, was wanted, and was actually used for military purposes.

It is admitted that various persons, from time to time, have resided upon the fractional quarter section 10 as well as Mr. Beaubean, but those persons were all, in some way, con

nected with the Army, and acting under the command of the United States officers; and that one Samuel T. Brady (who was a settler at said military post), in June, 1835, presented his claim to the right of pre-emption to the land, before the register and receiver of the said land office at Chicago, but which claim was rejected by the land officers, or never acted upon by them.

All the facts herein stated are admitted to be true; but they are not admitted to be evidence in the cause unless the court should be of opinion, upon the hearing of the case, that the facts, or any of them, would be admissible as evidence, if offered in evidence by one party and objected to by the other, upon the trial of the cause before a jury.

pre-emption claim of Beaubean; and the entry and pretended purchase by him were, therefore, as against the United States, utterly null and void.

1. Beaubean's possession and occupancy were subject to the control of the officers and troops of the United States stationed at Fort Dearborn; and, therefore, he could not acquire, within the meaning of the acts of Congress, a pre-emption right to any part of the premises. 2. The premises in question were withdrawn from the general operation of the pre-emption and other laws, by the Act of Congress of March 3d, 1819, "To authorize the sale of certain military sites."

4. The act of June 26, 1834, creating additional land districts, gives no right of pre-emption, and the plaintiff can therefore derive no title therefrom; and the premises were also excepted from that law, because reserved, within the meaning thereof, as necessary to be retained for a military post.

*3. If not so withdrawn, they were [*509 yet excepted from the pre-emption laws of the It is agreed that if the court should be of 29th of May, 1830, and the 19th of June, 1834; opinion, upon the hearing of the case, that the because reserved and appropriated, or at least law of the case is with the plaintiff, a judg-appropriated, for use of the United States, ment shall be rendered that he recover his term within the meaning of those acts. aforesaid; and that he have his writ of possession, etc., and that a judgment be rendered 508*] *against the defendant in favor of the plaintiff, for the use of the said lessor, for the amount of the rents and profits in the said plaintiff's declaration mentioned, together with his costs. But should the court be of opinion that the law of the case is with the defendant, then the plaintiff shall take nothing by his suit, and a judgment shall be rendered against the lessor of the plaintiff for the cost of this suit. Each party retains the right to remove the cause to the Supreme Court of the State of Illinois, by appeal or writ of error.

The judge of the Circuit Court of Illinois gave judgment for the defendant, and an appeal was taken to the Supreme Court of Illinois, by which court the judgment of the Circuit Court was reversed, and judgment entered for the plaintiff below.

To reverse this judgment, this writ of error was sued out at the instance of the United States; they being the parties interested in the

case.

The case was argued by Mr. Butler and by Mr. Grundy, Attorney-General, for the plaintiffs, and by Mr. Key and Mr. Webster for the

defendant.

For the plaintiff in error it was contended: I. Even if he admitted that Beaubean was entitled to right of pre-emption, and that the sale and the certificates thereof were properly made to him, still the plaintiff cannot recover

in this suit.

1. On the true construction of the several

acts of Congress applicable to the case, a patent is necessary to the completion of the legal title, and nothing short of it can, as against the United States, defeat their title in an action of ejectment.

Mr. Justice Barbour delivered the opinion of the court:

This is a writ of error to the Supreme Court of the State of Illinois, prosecuted under the 25th section of the Judiciary Act of 1789. It was an action of ejectment, brought by the defendant in error against the plaintiff in error.

From an agreed case stated in the record, the following appear to be the material facts upon which the questions to be decided arise: The land in question is part of fractional section 10, in township 39, north of range 14, east of the 3d principal meridian, in the County of Cook, and State of Illinois; and embraces the mili tary post called Fort Dearborn, of which post, at the time of bringing the suit, Wilcox was in possession, as the commanding officer of the United States; which post was established by the United States in 1804, and was thereafter occupied by the troops of the United States until the 16th August, 1812, when the troops were massacred, and the post taken by the enemy. It was re-occupied in 1816, when the United States built upon said fractional section some factory-houses for the use of the Indian Department.

The troops continued to occupy it until May, 1823, when it was evacuated by order of the government, and was left in possession of the Indian Agent at Chicago. In August, 1828, it was again occupied by the troops, acting under the orders of the Secretary of War, as one of 2. The plaintiff can derive no aid from the the military posts of the United States. It law of Illinois, referred to in the opinions of was again evacuated by the troops in May, the courts below; because that law, if it at-1831; but the government never gave up postempts to make the certificate of the register of session of it, but left it in possession of one Oliver Newberry, who authorized a certain the land office evidence of title as against the George Doe to take and keep it in repair, which United States, is repugnant to the ordinance of he accordingly did. It was again occupied by 1787, to the Constitution of the United States, the troops of the government in June, 1832 and to the acts of Congress for the disposal of under command of an officer of the Army of the public lands, and is, therefore, null and the United States. It has been occupied by void. the troops, and was generally known at ChiII. The land officers at Chicago had no ju-cago to be so occupied, from that time up to risdiction or authority to allow, or act on the the commencement of the suit, and was at the

« ПретходнаНастави »