sissippi, by Morgan M'Affee, to which the present plaintiffs in error appeared as defendants; 150*] and upon the trial, the verdict and judgment were in favor of M'Affee. The defendant in that suit thereupon appealed to the High Court of Appeals where the judgment of the inferior court was affirmed.

A brief statement will show the points that arose in the State court, so far as they are material upon the question of jurisdiction.

By the Act of Congress of April 20, 1832, entitled, "An Act for the relief of Jefferson College, in the State of Mississippi," the trustees of the college were authorized to relinquish certain lands which had been reserved for the use of the college, and to locate or enter other lands in lieu of them. The fourth section of this law authorized the college to transfer the right of location or entry conferred by the act; and declared that the assignee should be entitled to receive a certificate from the register of the proper land office, which should be "accounted for and held as valid and complete as if a patent had issued there

for."

The defendants then moved the court to exclude the said certificate, as evidence of legal title in the lessor of the plaintiffs; but the mo tion was overruled.

Exceptions were taken to these opinions, and the case was carried to the High Court of Errors and Appeal, where the judgment of the inferior court was affirmed as herein before mentioned.

From this statement of the case it will appear, that the only right drawn in question was that claimed by M'Affee under his certifi cate. If that certificate was a good legal title, it was elder, and therefore superior to the legal title derived under the patents produced by the defendants.

consequently, that it did not confer on the lessor of the plaintiff a valid legal title, upon which he could recover in ejectment.

The testimony offered to show that the certificate was fraudulently obtained, was intended to impeach the title M'Affee claimed under it; and the objection to its legal effect was made for the same purpose. The patents given in evidence by the defendants were not offered for the purpose of showing the legal title out of the lessor of the plaintiff, nor for the purpose of deriving a legal title under them At the trial of the ejectment, M'Affee, the older than the plaintiff's certificate, by virtue lessor of the plaintiff, made title under a cer- of the Act of June 19, 1834, mentioned in the tificate dated August 18, 1834, issued to him as exception, or any other law of the United assignee of Jefferson College, by virtue of this States; for it is stated in express terms that act of Congress. The certificate was read in they were offered in order to show that no patevidence, subject to all legal exceptions; the ent had ever been issued on M'Affee's certifi defendants in the case giving notice at the time, cate. They were intended, therefore, with that, in the progress of the trial, they would the other evidence, to prove that this certificate offer evidence that the said certificate was pur- was fraudulently and improperly obtained; chased fraudulently by the said M'Affee. that its authority had been denied by the The defendants then, for the purpose of show-commissioner of the general land office; and ing that no patent had ever issued, by virtue of the said certificate, offered in evidence six patents, which had been issued on pre-emption certificates; and which it was admitted covered the land embraced by the certificate of M'Affee. These patents were granted in 1837 and 1838 to different persons, under whom the defendants claimed the possession. And in order to show that the said certificate of M'Affee was fraudulently obtained, they offered to prove that the parties to whom the patents above mentioned issued were entitled to the benefit of pre-emption in the said land, under the acts of Congress then in force, before the lessor of the plaintiff obtained his certificate: that they were present at the land office, with money to enter and pay for the same; and offered to pay, in the presence of M'Affee, on the day he obtained his certificate, and before he obtained it: and that the defendants had 151*] *acquired possession of the lands afterwards, when these pre-emption claims had been allowed. This testimony was objected to by the lessor of the plaintiff, and the court refused to permit it to go to the jury, upon the ground that the certificate could not be impeached at law for fraud.

*These being the only questions raised [*152 in the State court, and being there decided in favor of the right claimed by M'Affee, under the Act of 1832, we have no authority to revise the judgment. In order to give this court jurisdiction under the 25th section of the Act of 1789, it is not sufficient that the construction of the act of Congress, or the validity of the right claimed by M'Affee, was drawn in question, and decided by the State court. must also appear that the decision was against the right claimed.

It

or was not

We do not mean to express any opinion as to the rights in contest between the parties. The question before us concerns merely the jurisdiction of this court, upon the case as it is now presented; and it is, therefore, not material to the present inquiry whether the parol evidence offered by the defendants was properly rejected. For the decision on that point, as well as on the question as to the legal effect of the certificate having been in favor of The defendants then offered to prove by the to examine into the correctness of the judgment the right claimed; this court is not authorized register of the land office, that the pre-emption claims before mentioned were finally allowed given by the State court. The power of the and paid for, and that the patents produced Supreme Court, in this respect, is carefully by the defendants, issued upon them; and that defined and restricted by the Act of 1789; and the commissioner of the general land office had it is our duty not to transcend the limits of the rejected M'Affee's certificate, and refused to jurisdiction conferred upon it. The writ of issue a patent upon it. This evidence was also error must therefore be dismissed for want of rejected. jurisdiction.

153*] *THE UNITED STATES, Appellants, | pectations but from the protection of your Ex

V.

PEDRO MIRANDA et al., Appellees. Spanish land grant in Florida-insufficient description.

A Florida land claim. On a petition from Pedro Mirandi, stating services performed by him for Spain, Governor White, the Governor of East Florida, on the 26th November, 1810, made a grant to him of eight leagues square, or three hundred and sixty-eight thousand six hundred and forty acres of land on the waters of Hillsborough and Tampa bays, in the Eastern District of Florida. No survey was made under this grant while Florida remained a province of Spain; nor was any attempt made to occupy or survey the land until after the cession of Florida to the United States. In 1821, it was alleged that a survey was made by a surveyor of East Florida. Held, that the grant was vold, no land having been severed from the public domain previous to the 24th January, 1818, and because the calls of the grant are too indefinite for local ity to be given to them.

cellency; therefore he supplicates your Excellency to be pleased, in remuneration of all which he has represented, and in consideration of his present destitute situation, to grant to him, in absolute property, a square of eight leagues in the royal lands which are found on the waters of Hillsborough and Tampa bays, in this province, in virtue of royal orders on the subject of granting lands gratuitously to Spanish subjects; which favor your petitioner hopes to receive from the justice of your Excellency. S. Augustine of Florida, 19th November,

1810.

Decree.

26th November, 1810. The merits and services alleged by this party being well known to this government, I grant to him in the terms which he solicits, the said quantity of land in the places which he indiThe settled doctrine of the Supreme Court, in re-cates, without prejudice to a third party; and spect to Florida grants, is, that grants embracing a as a proof of this grant to be shown at all natural or artificial boundaries, and which granted times, let a certified copy of this proceeding be lands were not surveyed before the 24th of Jan-issued to him from the secretary's office for his uary, 1818, and which are without such designation as will give a place of beginning for a survey, are not lands withdrawn from the mass of vacant

wide extent of country, or with a large area of

lands ceded to the United States in Florida, and are void; as well on that account as for being so uncertain that locality cannot be given to them.

His Excellency the Governor:

security.

White. The petition to the court stated that said tract or parcel of land has been divided and laid off into townships of twenty-three thousand and forty acres each; that the said division of the said land into townships, as aforesaid, was made by one Charles Vignoles, in the year one thousand eight hundred and twenty-one; the said Charles Vignoles then being a surveyor of East Florida.

After hearing testimony and arguments of counsel, the Superior Court of East Florida gave a pro forma decree in favor of the [*155 petitioners, for eight leagues square, being forty-six thousand and eighty acres; and the United States, and the claimants, prosecuted this appeal.

The case, on the appeal of the United States, was argued on the part of the United States by Mr. Duvall, and Mr. Legare, the Attorney. General of the United States; and was submit. ted on printed arguments by Mr. Garr and Mr. Ogden, for the appellees.

The arguments of the counsel on numerous points, submitted for the appellants and the appellees, are omitted, as the decree of the court was made exclusively on the question of the validity of the grant, under the cession of Florida to the United States, by the treaty with Spain.

Don Pedro Miranda, second pilot of the launch of the bar of this port, with the most profound respect represents to your Excellency: That he has the honor to serve His Catholic 154*] Majesty [whom may God preserve] from the year 1798, when he was employed as rower of the said launch, in which capacity he remained until he was promoted to his present For the appellants, it was contended, that as post, on account of his known merits and ex- no survey, possession, or cultivation of the land perience. Moreover, your Excellency well had been proved, as was necessary according knows the veracity of his good conduct, fidel-to the laws, usages, and ordinances of the Spanity, and devotion to the service of His Majesty; ish government, to vest a valid title to the land of which he has given proofs in various expe- in the claimant, the decree of the Superior ditions, which by order of his government your Court of East Florida should be reversed. petitioner undertook along the water-courses of this province, when it was overrun by rebels; and as for so distinguished services and others rendered to the satisfaction of your Excellency, your petitioner has not received any compensation whatever; and as he finds himself in a penurious condition, and without any other ex

Mr. Justice Wayne delivered the opinion of the court:

Florida.
Appeal from the Superior Court of East

The defendants in error claim title to a tract

of land, under a grant made by Governor White, on the 26th November, 1810, to Don Pedro Miranda, containing eight leagues square, or three hundred and sixty-eight thousand six hundred and forty acres, on the waters of Hillsborough

and Tampa bays, in the eastern district of the Territory of Florida.

Miranda's petition for the grant, and the grant, are in pages 153, 154.

After a recital of services, he asks as a remuneration, and in consideration of his destitute condition, that there may be granted to him in absolute property, a square of eight leagues in the royal lands which are found on the waters of Hillsborough and Tampa bays, in virtue of royal orders on the subject of granting lands gratuitously to Spanish subjects. The governor, in reply, acknowledges his services, and grants to him "in the terms as he solicits, the quantity of land in the places which he indicates, without prejudice to a third party;" and directs "a certified copy of the proceeding to be issued to him from the secretary's office for 156*] *his security." It does not appear that such certified copy was given to him; but Aguilar, who was secretary when the grant was made, deposes that he remembers that the grant was made to Miranda for his deserts and services on the shores of Hillsborough and Tampa bays; "that it was a part of eight leagues square, or thereabouts;" and he further says, the handwriting to the grant is the legitimate signature of Governor White. The district attorney admits that he has seen in the office of the archives of Florida, a document, of which that introduced by the complainants is a copy.

No survey, however, of the land was made whilst Florida was a province of Spain. Nor was any attempt made by the grantee, or by any agent or person claiming under him, to Occupy any land under this grant, or to make a survey of it, until after the Floridas had been ceded to the United States. The complainants allege that one was made in 1821, by Charles Vignoles, a surveyor of East Florida; and this survey is the first assertion of right in the premises by the grantee. After this survey was made, the grantee conveyed portions of the land, between the years 1822 and 1828, to the claimants associated with him in this suit. They allege that a claim for the whole of the lands was submitted to the examination of the commissioners appointed under the Act of Congress of 3d March, 1823 (3 Story, 1907), entitled "An Act for ascertaining claims and titles to lands in the Territory of Florida." The survey made by Vignoles, however, is not in the record; nor does it seem to have been in evidence on the trial of the cause in the court below.

"The petitioner asks for “a square of [*157 eight leagues, in the royal lands which are found on the waters of Hillsborough and Tampa bays." The grant is, "I grant to him, in the terms which he solicits, the said quantity of land in the places which he indicates."

Tampa, or Espiritu Santa, as it was known or called before Florida was ceded to the United States, is the largest on the Gulf of Mexico. It is at least forty miles long, and in one or more places, from thirty to forty miles broad. Hillsborough River empties into it from the north. To the southeast of Hillsborough River are the Indian and Alafia rivers. Lower down the bay on the same side, is Manali River, from sixteen to twenty miles wide at its mouth; and Oyster River is twenty miles below the Manali. The eastern part of this bay was by the British called Hillsborough; and the little bay attached to the north side, Tampa. The little Tampa is an elliptical basin, about ten miles in diameter. There are many islands in the bay, especially on the western part and at its mouth; and Tampa extends to Sarragossa Bay. William's Territory of Florida, page 24.

Where, in this extensive area, shall this grant be located? Shall it be on either of the rivers emptying into the bay? On the eastern or western side of the bay? At its head, or at its mouth? Shall it be a contiguous body of land on Hillsborough Bay, or on little Tampa; or shall it be divided in equal parts on both? If the grantee claims a right to survey on Hillsborough and little Tampa as the places indicated in his petition, then it cannot be taken in a single body "of a square of eight leagues;" for the former being on the east part of the bay, and the latter on the north side; neither the dimension nor form of the grant could be surveyed touching on both. And this, whether it is to be taken in a square of four equal sides, or in a rectangular parallelogram with a part of one third of the bay: which last is the mode prescribed by the Spanish authorities for surveys on navigable waters.

Shall it be left to the grantee to choose, or shall the court arbitrarily fix upon a point for the beginning of a survey? If there was a starting point, the claimants might, putting aside the other questions in the case against the confirmation of the grant, be entitled to a survey. But there is none. No survey was made under the grant whilst Florida belonged to Spain. Indeed, it appears from the record, that [*158 neither the governor making the grant, nor any other governor of Florida after him, ever gave an order for a survey of this grant. The grantee, though all the time in Florida, from the time when the grant was given until the treaty with Spain was made, a period of nine years, did not apply, or if he did, did not receive from the authorities of Spain an order for a survey. The case shows that in other grants of land made to We do not think it necessary to discuss, in him, subsequent to the date of that now under detail, the points urged in argument for and consideration; and there are nine or ten of them against the confirmation of this grant. in the record (pages 81 to 93, inclusive); that Two considerations are decisive of its inva-Miranda uniformly had them consummated by lidity.

By agreement between the solicitors and counsel of the parties, a pro forma decree was given for forty-six thousand and eighty acres of land, in favor of the complainants, situated on the waters of the bays of Hillsborough and Tampa; and from this decree the cause has been brought to this court by appeal by the United States.

The grant is void, no land having been severed from the public domain previous to the 24th January, 1818; and because the calls of the grant are too indefinite for locality to be given to them.

a royal title. And it is also worthy of remark, that he states in his petition to Governor Coppinger, on the 16th of September, 1817, after reciting his services from 1794 to 1812, in the defense of the province, and that he had had in his charge divers extraordinary commissions,

The decree of the court below is reversed, and the grant declared to be invalid.

The governor's decree on this petition states that, "in consideration of the benefit and utility that would result to the province, should it be executed as the petitioner proposed, he grants him the permission he asked, like

162*] *THE UNITED STATES, Appellants, wise the lands at the places he mentioned; with

V.

JOHN W. LOW et al., Appellees.

Conditional Spanish land grant in Florida— return of surveyor-general.

the express condition, that, until he erected the said machine, he should not have an absolute right in them," etc.

The originals of the petition and decree were not produced in evidence, neither are they to be found in the archives at St. Augustine. A certified copy, dated April 6th, 1816, under the hand of Thomas de Aguilar, secretary of the government (whose handwriting was proved), stated to be faithfully drawn from the original in his office, was alone offered, and was objected to on the part of the appellants. There were also produced two plats and cerClark, the Surveyor-General, for John Low. The first is dated December 23d, 1819, for "six thousand acres of land in the place called Doctor's Branch, on Bell River." The second is dated February 7th, 1820, for "ten thousand acres of land northwestwardly of the head of stream called North Creek, which empties itIndian River, and west of the prairies of the self at the head or pond of said river."

A Florida land claim. On the 6th of April, 1816, a grant was made by the Governor of Florida of five miles square, or sixteen thousand acres of land, on condition that a mill should be built. The grant of six thousand acres was for land on Doctor's Branch, where the mill was intended to be erected. The ten thousand acres were granted on the northeast side, on the lagoon of Indian River. The six thousand acres were surveyed in 1809, on Doctor's Branch, and the mill was built. The sur-tificates of survey, made by George J. F. vey under this grant was confirmed. The survey of ten thousand acres was made in February, 1820, by the Surveyor-General of Florida, "northwestwardly of the head of Indian River, and west of the prairies of the stream called North Creek, which empties itself at the head or pond of The official return of the Surveyor-General has acceded to it the force of a deposition.

said river."

The land granted could only be surveyed at the place granted; if elsewhere, it would have been a new appropriation, and therefore vold, and contrary to the eighth article of the treaty with Spain. According to the strict ideas of conforming a survey to a location, in the United States, the survey of ten thousand acres should be located adJoining the natural object called for, there beIng no other to aid and control the general call: and therefore the head of the lagoon would necessarily have formed one boundary. But it is obvious more latitude was allowed in the province of Florida under the government of Spain.

The Surveyor-General having returned that the survey was made according to the grant, and in the absence of other contradictory proof, the claim was confirmed.

Among the witnesses examined to prove the building of the mill, was George J. F. Clark, who was objected to by the district attorney. The objection to the testimony of George J. F. Clark, taken in the Superior Court, was made on the ground that he was interested in the cas. It appeared from the record, that after he had been examined on interrogatories to prove the surveys made by him, the following was attached, at his request, to the examination of the commissioner:

"I further state, that in February, 1821, I embraced by this grant; this I mention in supFlorida. The heirs of John Low claimed sixteen thou-while I exercise the candour due to the [*164 port of my confidence in the integrity thereof; sand acres of land in East Florida, under a honorable court in this case, and to myself as grant by Governor Coppinger, founded on & petition alleged to have been presented by their that before February, 1821, I was entirely una witness. Perhaps it may be necessary to add, ancestor, dated 20th March, 1816, and a decree interested in this grant. of Governor Coppinger thereon, dated April 6th, 1816. The petition states, that, "bounding with the petitioner's land, on Bell River, there was a creek known by the name of Doctor's Branch, which was suitable for the establishment of a water saw-mill, and as he could construct, and was desirous of construct

ON appeal from the Superior Court of East Purchased of the said John Low a tract of land

ing immediately, a saw-mill on said place, if he could obtain the permission of the government, and a grant of the accustomed quantity of land for the supply of lumber, and the assurance, in his favor, that the great expenses that were indispensable to its construction, and the risks to 163*] which he would be liable, would be

compensated; he therefore prayed that the gov: ernor would grant him five miles square of land, or its equivalent, permitting him to take six thousand acres in the vacant lands in the neighborhood of Doctor's Branch, and ten thousand acres on the northwest side of the head or lagoon of Indian River."

NOTE. As to patents for lands, and errors in descriptions and surveys of, see note to 5 L. ed. U. S. 423.

"George J. F. Clarke. "Before me, K. B. Gibbs, Commissioner." After hearing the testimony, the court made a decree in favor of the claimants for both

tracts of land, from which the present appeal

is taken.

The case

Attorney-General, for the United States, and was argued by Mr. Legare, the by Mr. Berrien and Mr. Wilde for the appellees.

For the United States it was contended1. That the testimony of Clarke was improperly admitted.

2. That there was not sufficient evidence that

the said alleged grant or concession was ever made by Governor Coppinger.

3. That the alleged concession, if ever made, was on a condition precedent, which was never fulfilled.

4. That the description of the six thousand acres in the neighborhood of Doctor's Branch in too vague to be the foundation of a valid

survey.

5. That the plat and certificate of survey for