JAMES M'DONALD'S HEIRS, APPELLANTS
v.
FREEMAN SMALLEY AND OTHERS, APPELLEES
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.
The heirs of James M'Donald sought to obtain land conveyed by a senior patent held by Freeman Smalley, claiming superior rights through a prior entry made in the name of David Anderson, who was deceased at the time the entry was made. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of their suit, holding that an entry made in the name of a deceased person is a nullity under Ohio law and therefore cannot serve as a valid foundation for title, regardless of whether the error resulted from a surveyor's mistake.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr Chief Justice Marshall delivered tk opinion of the-Court.
This suit was brought in the court of the United States for the seventh circuit, and district of Ohio,- to obtain a-convey-. anee for land which the defendants hold by a senior patent,, and which the plaintiffs claim under a prior entry. The bill was dismissed by the circuit court, arid the plaintiffs have appealed to this court.
Serious doubts exist respecting the validity of the entry under which the claim has been made; and several points have-been discussed at the bar. It is unnecessary to decide more than one of these questions, because that is decisive of the case. David Anderson, in whose name the entry under which the. plaintiffs claim was made, was dead at the time. The entry, therefore, as was determined in Galt and others v. Galloway, 4 Peters, 332, 345, is, in the state of Ohio, a nullity - This being the foundation of the plaintiffs? title; they must fail in their action.
Counsel at the bar have endeavoured to distinguish this case-from that, by treating the entry as one made in the-name of the wrong person-, through the mistake of the surveyor. We do not think he is sustained by-.the fact or the law of the case. The decree is affirmed with cost?.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
De la Vergne Refrigerating Mach. Co. v. Featherstone, 147 U.S. 209 (U.S. 1893)
-
Galloway v. Finley, 12 Pet. 264 (U.S. 1838)
-
Duncan McArthur's Heirs v. Heirs, 7 How. 262 (U.S. 1849)
Authorities Cited
- William T. Galt and others v. Galloway, 4 Pet. 332 (U.S. 1830)