[1] THE DECISIONS OF THE Supreme Court of the United States, AT OCTOBER TERM, 1887. [Authenticated copy of opinion record strictly followed, except as to such reference words and figures as are enclosed in brackets.] ANDREW J. COFFEE, Piff. in Err., V. JAMES M. GROOVER ET AL. (See 8. C. Reporter's ed. 1-31.) Grants of land by government de facto-disputed 1. Grants of land made by a government, in ter- 2. Where a disputed boundary between two States is adjusted and settled, grants previously made, by either State, of lands claimed by it, and over which it excrcised political jurisdiction, but which, on the adjustment of the boundary, are found to be within the territory of the other State, are void unless confirmed by the latter State; and such confirmation cannot affect the titles of the same lands previously granted by the latter State itself. 3. The boundary between Georgia and Florida 4. The bistory of the Florida boundary stated. Decided Argued and submitted April 20, 1887. 54. Reported below, 20 Fla. 61. See also 19 Fla. The history and facts of the case appear the opinion of the court. Mr. Angus Paterson, for plaintiff error: in in The principal question involved in this case is the boundary between the States of Georgia and Florida, and as to the title of lands in the State of Florida. The dividing line between the States of Georgia and Florida was at a very east from the junction of the Flint and Chatearly period recognized as a line running due tahoochee Rivers to the head of the Saint Mary's River. 1881-7, 21; Thomp. Dig. Fla. 4, also 584; A. D. 1859. This was done by B. F. Whitner The which has been noticed by both States. Laws Fla. 1859, chap. 1017. south called the Watson line; but it is not found There is a neighborhood line still further in the statutes of either State, and is only referred to in the Act of Congress passed to quiet titles along the line, which the United States had not conveyed. U. S. Stat. at L. 1872, p. 52, chap. 451. State of Georgia the right to grant the land in There are none of these Acts that give the controversy, or to make a valid deed. This line, but also south of the McNeil line and was land lies not only south of the Whitner & Orr and the United States had the right to grant this a part of the land ceded by Spain, A. D. 1819, Whitner & Orr line is now the acknowledged land to the State of Florida or otherwise. The so established and fixed by the States themline between the States of Georgia and Florida, selves. Laws Fla. 1859, chap. 1017; 1861, Resolution 51 No. 16; McClelland, Dig. pp. 952, §§ 8,11; Code Ga. 1861, pp. 6, 7, §§ 17, 21. It is the right of independent Nations to establish and fix disputed boundaries between their respective territories, and this right belongs to the several States of the American Union with one exception, by the consent of Congress, and persons claiming land under grants from the States are subject to the conditions of the compact made by the States. Poole v. Fleeger, 36 U. S. 11 Pet. 185 (9:-680); Rhode Island v. Mass. 37 U. S. 12 Pet. 657 (9: 1233); Garcia v. Lee, Id. 511 (9: 1176). The land in controversy was patented by the United States to Florida A. D. 1850. Certificate of Hugh A. Corley, Commissioner of Lands and Immigration. This certificate is evidence and of the same force that the patent itself would be. Laws Fla. 1875, chap. 2063. The land had previously been surveyed and as soon as it came into market was entered by McCall & Stripling. Certificate of D. Eagan, Comr. of L. and I. Laws Fla. 1875, chap. 2063. But they received no deed, only a certificate which they afterwards transferred to the plaintiff in appeal who procured a deed to himself from the State, and is therefore entitled to the land, having a perfect chain of titles from the United States Government to himself. The defendants claim title through the State of Georgia by grants issued in 1842. The land in controversy belonged to Spain until 1819 when it was purchased by the United States, and Georgia had no more right to convey this land after it became the property of the United States than she had when it belonged to Spain, and even claiming it for a long time does not give title by occupancy. No Statute of Limitations will run against the government. Ang. Lim. §§ 34, 37; U. S. v. Hoar, 2 Mason, 312. It was conceded by Floridians that the McNeil line was the boundary between the two States, as that line had been recognized by the the States, although not adopted. But they have never conceded that Georgia had a right to come south of the McNeil line. The Watson line was a private line drawn by some individual which cut off a large piece from Florida. And if Georgia has a right to this strip of land, for the same reason she might have taken all of the State of Florida. The land in controversy is a part of Florida, proved by the plaintiff in error and admitted by the defendant in error. It has been conveyed by the United States and a patent issued therefor. The line fixed by the States of Florida and Georgia and ratified by Congress is north of all the lines. This line was ratified by Congress in 1872. See Act of Congress, Stat. at L. 1872, p. 52, chap. 461. There is no dispute as to where the.boundary line is, or as to the location of the land in controversy; it is admitted to be in Florida, and south of the McNeil line; therefore a patent from the United States Government to that land is superior to all others. This case was determined by the Circuit Court of the United States in 1876. The suit was brought by A. J. Coffee against Mary J. Groover, executor of Charles E. Groover, and she had full power by the will to represent the estate. And the state court had no right to try this cause because the United States court had jurisdiction of the whole matter. Evans v. Percifull, 5 Ark. 428; Elliott v. Peirsol, 26 U. S. 1 Pet. 340 (7: 170); also 27 U. S. 2 Pet. 169 (7: 385). The first judgment in this cause was for the plaintiff in error, by the Circuit Court of the State of Florida, in and for Jefferson County, and the Supreme Court of Florida committed an error in reversing said judgment. See Groover v. Coffee, 19 Fla. 64. It was afterwards tried in the Circuit Court for Jefferson County and the verdict and judg ment given for the Groovers, and on appeal taken to the supreme court, this last judgment was affirmed, which plaintiff in error claims to be erroneous. Coffee v. Groover, 20 Fla. 61. Messrs. S. Pasco and C. W. Stevens, for defendants in error: Florida expressly withheld her lands in this disputed territory from the market until the settlement of the boundary line between the two States. Stat. Fla. chap. 163; Sess. 3, p. 23; chap. 924; Sess. 9, p. 58. The register had no power under the state law to make the bargain with McCall & Stripling at the time he issued his certificate to them. Later, while attempting to settle the boundary question, and before she parted with her title, she confirmed the Georgia grants to the Watson line in the occupying claimants. This was doubtless intended to be and was an inducement to Georgia to make the final settlement, which was not favorable to her. Stat. Fla. chap. 1017; adjourned Sess. 9, p. 28. This court will not entertain jurisdiction, if the judgment of the state court can be sustained by some proposition in the record, of which it has exclusive jurisdiction. Rector v. Ashley, 73 U. S. 6 Wall. 142 (18: 753). The land in controversy was never in fact a part of the State of Florida until the Orr and Whitner line, which lies north of both the McNeil and Watson lines was agreed upon by the two States as the boundary line, and this agreement became effective by the implied ratification of Congress in 1872. 19 Fla. 81; Acts 42d Cong. Sess. 2, p. 52, chap. XCI. Georgia settled the questions between her and the General Government as to the public lands within her borders, by the solemn agreement April 24, 1802, by which she ceded to the United States her territory west of the Chattahoochee River, and the government, among other things, agreed to extinguish for the benefit of Georgia the Indian claims to lands within her remaining territory. This was accomplished by different treaties with the Indians. The one which included the land in dispute was made at Fort Jackson, August 9, 1814, by General A. Jackson with the Creeks. The territory then acquired by the legislative action of Georgia became Irwin County in 1818, and from it |