Bryan v. Kennett

Last updated
Bryan v. Kennett
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Argued December 12, 1884
Decided January 5, 1885
Full case nameBryan & Others v. Kennett & Others
Citations113 U.S. 179 ( more )
5 S. Ct. 407; 28 L. Ed. 908
Court membership
Chief Justice
Morrison Waite
Associate Justices
Samuel F. Miller  · Stephen J. Field
Joseph P. Bradley  · John M. Harlan
William B. Woods  · Stanley Matthews
Horace Gray  · Samuel Blatchford
Case opinion
MajorityHarlan, joined by unanimous

Bryan v. Kennett, 113 U.S. 179 (1885), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that, under the treaty providing for the Louisiana Purchase, the United States would recognize property interests granted by the previous sovereign governments prior to the Purchase, even if the grant had been inchoate or incomplete.

Contents

The case involved a disputed title to land in the U.S. state of Missouri, which had previously been under the control of Spain and France before being acquired by the United States. In the late 1700s, the government of Spain had made a possibly incomplete grant of the land to a U.S. citizen, Moses Austin. Spain then lost control of the land to France in 1800, who in turn sold it to the United States. A question later arose as to whether Austin had received sufficient property rights from Spain to allow him to mortgage his land in 1818, or whether necessary rights had somehow passed back to the United States government, making the mortgage invalid and voiding subsequent land transfers that occurred pursuant to Austin's defaulting on the mortgage. Under the Court's holding, the incomplete grant to Austin was valid and sufficient to permit the mortgage. [1]

Bryan v. Kennett is sometimes referenced as the Supreme Court's "ratification" of the Louisiana Purchase. [2] However, the Court had already discussed and confirmed the legality of the Louisiana Purchase much earlier in American Insurance Co. v. Canter , 1 Peters (26 U.S.) 511 (1828). [3]

Background

During the 1790s, Moses Austin, a former dry goods merchant who had married into an affluent iron mining family, had been one of the operators of a lead mine in southwestern Virginia and become known as the "Lead King". However, the business failed and Austin decided to leave the United States in order to avoid imprisonment for debt. He relocated to upper Spanish Louisiana, an area then controlled by Spain (which later became the U.S. state of Missouri), due to rich lead deposits in the region. Austin arranged with the Spanish government to receive a large tract of land in return for his swearing allegiance to the Spanish Crown and agreeing to settle some families in the area. [4]

In 1797, the Spanish governor directed that Austin be placed in possession of land "one league square" (approximately 4,428 acres). Austin subsequently took possession of the land, moved his family onto it and built a house, blacksmith shop, and other improvements. In 1799, Spanish officials conducted a survey of the land and in 1802, the Spanish governor at New Orleans granted Austin the surveyed land. However, in the meantime Spain had returned Louisiana to France by operation of the Third Treaty of San Ildefonso in 1800, although Louisiana remained nominally under Spanish control until 1803, just before France sold it to the United States in the Louisiana Purchase. The land granted to Austin by the Spanish governor was therefore owned by France at the time of the 1802 grant and came under the jurisdiction of the United States in 1803. [1]

Austin founded the Bank of St. Louis and was its principal stockholder. In 1818, he mortgaged his land to the bank for $15,000, but the bank failed in the Panic of 1819, causing Austin to lose his entire fortune and resulting in judgments being entered against him for approximately $14,500. Austin's land was subsequently seized and sold via sheriff's sale to pay his creditors. Following the sheriff's sale, Austin's land changed hands several more times and ended up in the possession of John Deane by 1835. However, Austin, perhaps in an effort to protect some of his assets, had also conveyed the land himself in 1820 to his son-in-law James Bryan and other grantees. Austin died in 1821, and Bryan in 1822. [1] [5]

In 1835, Deane brought a quiet title action in equity in Missouri against the heirs of James Bryan, who by then were living in Texas and failed to appear. Deane was awarded the right, title and interest to the land. Deane and his successors in title continued to occupy the land. [1]

Almost 40 years later, on February 14, 1874, an Act of Congress was approved stating that "the United States hereby release whatever title they have" regarding Austin's former land (now located in Washington County, Missouri) "to the heirs, legal representatives, or assigns of said Moses Austin, according to their respective interests therein, provided however that this act shall not affect nor impair the title which any settler or other person may have acquired adverse to the title of said Moses Austin to any portion of said land." Bryan's heirs now brought an action for ejectment of Deane's successors in title, alleging (among other things) that Austin had not received complete title to his land from the Spanish government and thus he could not have mortgaged the land, which reverted to the possession of the United States and then passed to Bryan's heirs by operation of the Act of Congress. [1]

Deane's successors in title, who were currently in possession of the land, contended that they and those from whom they claimed the land had been in "open, continuous adverse possession" of the disputed land for more than thirty years prior to the start of the current action, and had paid taxes due on the land; the plaintiffs and those from whom they claimed had not been in possession for any period of time exceeding thirty years or paid taxes. They further contended that equitable title came from the United States starting in 1803, that the United States had made no attempt to claim the land itself, and that the previous holding in the 1836 equity suit by John Deane estopped the plaintiffs from now trying to claim the land. [1]

Opinion of the Court

In an opinion by Justice John M. Harlan, the Supreme Court held that Spain's grant to Austin, even if incomplete, was recognized by the United States, thus supporting the claim of Deane's successors in title, who took possession of the land due to Austin's mortgage and subsequent default. In so holding, the Court reaffirmed its position, as set forth in previous cases, that "in that treaty by which Louisiana was acquired, the United States stipulated that the inhabitants of the ceded territory should be protected in the free enjoyment of their property; that the term 'property,' as applied to lands comprehends every species of title, inchoate or complete, and embraces rights which lie in contract, executory as well as executed, and that in this respect the relation of the inhabitants to their government was not changed, the new government taking the place of that which had passed away."

The Court further clarified that the United States government intended to broadly recognize the claims of property owners to property they were granted or otherwise had a presumed right based on the actions of Spain or France prior to the Louisiana Purchase, without requiring that the property owner also have taken all the necessary steps to legally complete the grant. The Court noted that at the time of the Purchase, there were very few "complete grants", that "nineteen-twentieths" of the grants were incomplete and that "[m]ost of the inhabitants were too poor to defray the expenses attending the completion of their titles, but they had faith in their government" that the title would be recognized. In making this ruling on the property issue, the Court cited its previous opinions in Strother v. Lucas, 31 U.S. 763 (1832), Soulard v. United States, 29 U.S. 511 (1830), and Landes v. Brant, 51 U.S. 348 (1850) in support. The Court also noted that the Act of Congress was stated to also apply to "legal representatives or assigns" of Austin and not just to his heirs. [1]

The Court also held that the plaintiffs were estopped from asserting in the current "collateral proceeding" any interest in the property by the 1836 decision on Deane's bill of equity, because the court making that decision had jurisdiction, the decision was conclusive, and had not been reversed or modified on appeal, or otherwise set aside or annulled. [1]

The Court concluded its opinion by stating that "the sole object of [the Act of Congress] ... was to assure those who thus acquired possession, whether by contract or by operation of law, that they would not be disturbed by any assertion of claim upon the part of the United States. It originated with the representatives in Congress from Missouri, whose avowed purpose was to protect the interests of their immediate constituents. The necessity of this act arose from a then recent opinion of the Commissioner of the General Land Office that the legal title to the land within the Austin claim was still in the United States. In order to quiet the fears of those 'who have been in possession for half a century, claiming the land adversely against everybody, as well as the United States,' the act of 1874 was passed. It had no other object." [1]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Louisiana Purchase</span> 1803 acquisition of large region of Middle America land by the U.S. from France

The Louisiana Purchase was the acquisition of the territory of Louisiana by the United States from the French First Republic in 1803. This consisted of most of the land in the Mississippi River's drainage basin west of the river. In return for fifteen million dollars, or approximately eighteen dollars per square mile, the United States nominally acquired a total of 828,000 sq mi in Middle America. However, France only controlled a small fraction of this area, most of which was inhabited by Native Americans; effectively, for the majority of the area, the United States bought the preemptive right to obtain Indian lands by treaty or by conquest, to the exclusion of other colonial powers.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Stephen F. Austin</span> American empresario (1793–1836)

Stephen Fuller Austin was an American-born empresario. Known as the "Father of Texas" and the founder of Anglo Texas, he led the second and, ultimately, the successful colonization of the region by bringing 300 families and their slaves from the United States to the Tejas region of Mexico in 1825.

In property law, title is an intangible construct representing a bundle of rights in (to) a piece of property in which a party may own either a legal interest or equitable interest. The rights in the bundle may be separated and held by different parties. It may also refer to a formal document, such as a deed, that serves as evidence of ownership. Conveyance of the document may be required in order to transfer ownership in the property to another person. Title is distinct from possession, a right that often accompanies ownership but is not necessarily sufficient to prove it. In many cases, possession and title may each be transferred independently of the other. For real property, land registration and recording provide public notice of ownership information.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">District of Louisiana</span> Territory of the USA between 1804-1805

The District of Louisiana, or Louisiana District, was an official and temporary United States government designation for the portion of the Louisiana Purchase that had not been organized into the Territory of Orleans or "Orleans Territory". The district officially existed from March 10, 1804, until July 4, 1805, when it was incorporated as the Louisiana Territory.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Moses Austin</span> American businessman and Spanish empressario

Moses Austin was an American businessman and pioneer who played a large part in the development of the lead industry in the early United States. He was the father of Stephen F. Austin, one of the earliest American settlers of Texas, which was at the time part of Mexico.

Allodial title constitutes ownership of real property that is independent of any superior landlord. Allodial title is related to the concept of land held "in allodium", or land ownership by occupancy and defense of the land.

A land patent is a form of letters patent assigning official ownership of a particular tract of land that has gone through various legally-prescribed processes like surveying and documentation, followed by the letter's signing, sealing, and publishing in public records, made by a sovereign entity.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States Court of Private Land Claims</span> Court created to resolve land claims in the western U.S. (1891–1904)

The United States Court of Private Land Claims (1891–1904) was an ad-hoc court created to decide land claims guaranteed by the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, in the territories of New Mexico, Arizona, and Utah, and in the states of Nevada, Colorado, and Wyoming.

Avegno v. Schmidt, 113 U.S. 293 (1885), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that title to property confiscated during the American Civil War was properly held by the mortgagor.

<i>Botiller v. Dominguez</i> 1889 United States Supreme Court case

Botiller v. Dominguez, 130 U.S. 238 (1889), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court dealing with the validity of Spanish or Mexican land grants in the Mexican Cession, the region of the present day southwestern United States that was ceded to the U.S. by Mexico in 1848 under the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.

The vast majority of states in the United States employ a system of recording legal instruments that affect the title of real estate as the exclusive means for publicly documenting land titles and interests. This system differs significantly from land registration systems, such as the Torrens system that have been adopted in a few states. The principal difference is that the recording system does not determine who owns the title or interest involved, which is ultimately determined through litigation in the courts. The system provides a framework for determining who the law will protect in relation to those titles and interests when a dispute arises.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Emily Austin Perry</span> Sole heir to Stephen F. Austin

Emily Austin Bryan Perry was the sister of Stephen F. Austin and an early settler of Texas. She was an heir to Austin's estate when he died in 1836. She achieved significant political, economic and social status as a woman in Texas at a time when women were often not treated equal to men.

James Bryan (1789–1822) was an American mining entrepreneur whose efforts in concert with others brought economic development to Missouri. Bryan operated "Bryan's Mines" on Hazel Run, north of Big River, in SW 1/4 of Sec. 33, T. 37N. 5E. in 1806; this location is also known as "Hazel Run Lead Digging."

Louisville Joint Stock Land Bank v. Radford, 295 U.S. 555 (1935), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that ruled the Frazier–Lemke Farm Bankruptcy Act unconstitutional in violation of the Fifth Amendment. This unanimous decision was one of the Court's many rulings that overturned President Roosevelt's New Deal.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Aboriginal title in the Marshall Court</span> Court era recognizing Native American tribal rights

The Marshall Court (1801–1835) issued some of the earliest and most influential opinions by the Supreme Court of the United States on the status of aboriginal title in the United States, several of them written by Chief Justice John Marshall himself. However, without exception, the remarks of the Court on aboriginal title during this period are dicta. Only one indigenous litigant ever appeared before the Marshall Court, and there, Marshall dismissed the case for lack of original jurisdiction.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Narragansett land claim</span> Litigation of aboriginal title in Rhode Island, US

The Narragansett land claim was one of the first litigations of aboriginal title in the United States in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark Oneida Indian Nation of New York v. County of Oneida (1974), or Oneida I, decision. The Narragansett claimed a few thousand acres of land in and around Charlestown, Rhode Island, challenging a variety of early 19th century land transfers as violations of the Nonintercourse Act, suing both the state and private land owners.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Aboriginal title in California</span> Land rights of indigenous peoples

Aboriginal title in California refers to the aboriginal title land rights of the indigenous peoples of California. The state is unique in that no Native American tribe in California is the counterparty to a ratified federal treaty. Therefore, all the Indian reservations in the state were created by federal statute or executive order.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has held that there is no aboriginal title in Louisiana.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Aboriginal title in the Taney Court</span>

The Supreme Court of the United States, under Chief Justice Roger B. Taney (1836–1864), issued several important decisions on the status of aboriginal title in the United States, building on the opinions of aboriginal title in the Marshall Court.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">English land law</span> Law of real property in England and Wales

English land law is the law of real property in England and Wales. Because of its heavy historical and social significance, land is usually seen as the most important part of English property law. Ownership of land has its roots in the feudal system established by William the Conqueror after 1066, and with a gradually diminishing aristocratic presence, now sees a large number of owners playing in an active market for real estate.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Bryan v. Kennett, 113 U.S. 179 (1885). Retrieved 2016-01-04 via Justia.com.
  2. "A Guide to the James Bryan Papers, 1799-1822". www.lib.utexas.edu. Dolph Briscoe Center for American History . Retrieved 2016-01-04. Bryan attained significance when the United States Supreme Court recognized details of a land transfer from Bryan's father-in-law Moses Austin to Bryan in Bryan v. Kennett, which was the Court's ratification of the Louisiana Purchase.
  3. Rodriguez, Junius P. (2002). "American Insurance Co. v. Canter (1828)". In Rodriguez, Junius P. (ed.). The Louisiana Purchase: A Historical and Geographical Encyclopedia. Santa Barbara, California: ABC-CLIO. p. 7. ISBN   1-57607-188-X.
  4. Edmondson, J.R. (2000). The Alamo Story-From History to Current Conflicts. Plano, TX: Republic of Texas Press. p. 56. ISBN   1-55622-678-0.
  5. Gracy II, David B. "Moses Austin". Handbook of Texas Online. Texas State Historical Association. Retrieved November 13, 2013.