NATHAN E. HOOPER, LOUISA J. HOOPER, AND AMANDA E. HOOPER, MINORS, BY ABSALOM FOWLER, THEIR NEXT FRIEND, PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR,
v.
JACOB SCHEIMER

U.S. | 1859-12-01
23 How. 235 Supreme Court of the United States (1859) Caution
Also reported at: 16 L. Ed. 452 · 1859 U.S. LEXIS 765 · SCDB 1859-043
Cited by 14 cases

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.

Synopsis

In an ejectment action brought in federal circuit court, the Supreme Court affirmed a judgment favoring the defendant who held title under a U.S. patent, rejecting the plaintiffs' claim based solely on an entry made with the federal land office register and receiver. The Court held that while a U.S. patent constitutes the best legal title known to law, an ejectment action cannot be maintained in federal courts on the equitable title derived from a land office entry alone, regardless of whether state law permits such actions.

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.

Opinion of the Court
Mr. Justice CATRON

Mr. Justice CATRON delivered the opinion of the court.

An action of ejectment was brought in the Circuit Court of the United States for eastern district of Arkansas, founded on an entry made in a United States land office. This was the only title produced on the trial by the plaintiffs.

The defendant held • possession under a patent from the United States to. Johrj. Pope, (Governor, &c.,) with which the defendant connected himself by a regular ¿liain of conveyances. The Circuit Court held the patent to be the better legal title, and so instructed the jury, who found for the defendant; and the plaintiffs prosecute this writ of error to reverse that judgment. ... By the statute of Arkansas, an action of ejectment may be maintained where the plaintiff claims possession by virtue of an entry made with the register and receiver of the proper land office of the United States. Ar. Digest, 454.

This court-held, in the ease of Bagnell et al. v. Broderick, (13 Peters, 450,) “ that Congress had the sole power to declare the dignity and effect of a patent issuing from the United States; that a patent carries the fee, and is the best title known to a court of law.” Such is the settled doctrine of this court.

But there is another question', standing in advance of the foregoing, to wit: Can an action of ejectment be maintained in the Federal courts against a defendant in possession, on an entry made with the register and receiver ?

It is also the settled doctrine of this court, that no action of ejectment will lie on such an equitable title, notwithstanding a State Legislature may have provided otherwise by statute. The law is only binding on the State courts, and has no force in the Circuit Courts of the Union. Fenn v. Holme, (21 How., 482.)

It is ordered, that the judgment be affirmed.

No. 60 depends on the same titles and facts and instructions to the j ury as are set forth in 59; and the same verdict and judgment were given in the Circuit Court.

We order it to be affirmed likewise.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Sheffield Furnace Co. v. Witherow, 149 U.S. 574 (U.S. 1893)
    …w or in equity, not according to the practice of state courts, but according to the principles of common-law and equity, as distinguished and defined in that country from which we derive our knowledge of those principles.” Hooper [*580] v. Scheimer, 23 How. 235; Sheirburn v. Cordova, 24 How. 423; Whitehead v. Shattuck, 138 U. S. 146, 152; Scott v. Neely, 140 U. S. 106; Smyth v. N. O. Canal & Banking Co., 141 U. S. 656. But, further, the defendant contends that by the state law the lien was limited to one…
  • Gleason v. White, 199 U.S. 54 (U.S. 1905)
  • Langdon v. Sherwood, 124 U.S. 74 (U.S. 1888)
    …nd that evidence of an equitable estate will not be sufficient for a recovery, are principles so elementary and so familiar to the profession as to tender unnecessary the-citation of authority in support of. .them.”- The case of Hooper v. Scheimer, 23 How. 235, was an action of ejectment in the Circuit Court of the United States for the [*84] Eastern District of Arkansas. The plaintiff endeavored to maintain his right to recover possession by the production of an entry made in the United States Land Offic…

Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw