UNITED STATES
v.
DREW
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Drew brought an equity suit against the United States seeking land warrants as compensation for a Spanish land grant to Francisco Adante that had been surveyed and sold as public land, claiming rights under an 1858 statute and a prior 1823 congressional confirmation. The Supreme Court reversed the Circuit Court's decision and ordered dismissal of the petition, applying the same legal reasoning it had used in a related case involving similar land claims. Justices Miller and Field dissented from the majority's decision.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice Bradley delivered the opinion of the court.
This is a suit in equity brought against the United States to establish the claim of the plaintiff to have land warrants or certificates of location for one thousand and fifteen acres of land made out and delivered to him by way of indemnity and satisfaction for a certain concession or grant of land made by the Spanish governor to one Francisco Adante, in 1788, the land itself having been surveyed as public land by the United States and disposed of to purchasers. The claim is made under the provisions of the act of June 2d, 1858, entitled “An act to provide for the location of certain confirmed private land claims of the State of Missouri, and for other purposes,” 11 Stat. 294, the claim in question having been confirmed by act of Congress passed February 28, 1823, 3 Stat. 727. The suit is subject to the same objections which exist in relation to the suits of Carrie Jones and others, just disposed of, and the same decree must be made as in those cases.
The decree of the Circuit Court is reversed, am,d the cause rema/nded, with instructions to dismiss the originad petition or hill.
Mr. Justice Miller and Mr. Justice Field dissented, for the reasons stated in their dissent in United States v. Jones.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (93 total)
-
State v. Pinder, 375 So. 2d 836 (Fla. 1979)…e, conviction of a greater crime, murder, cannot be had without conviction of the lesser crime, robbery with firearms, the Double Jeopardy Clause bars prosecution for the lesser crime after conviction of the greater one. In re Nielsen, 131 U.S. 176, 9 S.Ct. 672, 33 L.Ed. 118 (1889); cf. Brown v. Ohio, 432 U.S. 161, 97 S.Ct. 2221, 53 L.Ed.2d 187 (1977). “ . . . [A] person [who] has been tried and convicted for a crime which has various incidents included in it, . cannot be a second time tried for one of tho…1 / 2
-
Baker v. State, 425 So. 2d 36 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)…ion of the test. The particular constitutional analysis known as the Blockburger test actually predates the Blockburger case. Prior cases emphasized that the test is to be applied to statutory elements and not facts. Ex Parte Nielsen, 131 U.S. 176, 9 S.Ct. 672, 33 L.Ed. 118 (1889), states the same principle as Blockburger, but in different language.17 Similarly, in Gavieres v. United States, 220 U.S. 338, 31 S.Ct. 421, 55 L.Ed. 489 (1911), appellant was charged, convicted, and sentenced for violating a st…1 / 2
-
Ex parte Clarkson, 72 Fla. 220 (Fla. 1916)…ugh the minutes of the court do not disclose that the acquittal was ordered upon the ground of variance in the matter of time, they do not negative this suggestion. The case has not reached its final stage, as in Nielsen, Petitioner, 131 U. S. 176, 9 Sup. Ct. Rep. 672, and the cases hold that the ruling may not be reviewed by habeas corpus. See 12 R. C. L. p. 1206; Hovey v. Sheffner, 16 Wyo. 254, 93 Pac. Rep. 305, 125 Am. St. Rep. 1037, 15 Ann. Cas. 318, 15 L. R. A. (N. S.) 227. Also Bronk v. State, 43 Fla. 461,…
Previewing 3 of 93 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence