VERDEN
v.
COLEMAN
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.
In a mortgage foreclosure dispute, the mortgagor challenged the validity of a patent to land granted by the United States, arguing that the patent was void because a section had been reserved for an Indian named To-pen-na-be under an 1832 treaty with the Pottawatomie Indians. The Supreme Court of Indiana upheld the patent as valid, and the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction, holding that to invoke the Court's jurisdiction under the Judiciary Act's 25th section, a party must claim title under a treaty for himself rather than for a third party in whom he has no interest.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice GRIER';
Does this case come within the 25th' section of the judiciary act?
The bill filed in the State court is for the foreclosure of a mortgage. The defence set up by the mortgagor was, that the-consideration of the note which the mortgage secured was the purchase money of the land mortgaged; that the title to one of the tracts was through a patent of the United States to Hannamah Hewett; that this patent did not convey' a good title, because in 1832 the United States concluded a treaty of purchase of a 'large tract of country with the Pottawatomie Indians'; that by the terms of this treaty a'section was reserved for an Indian named To-pen-na-be, to be located under direction of the President; that before the-date of the patent to Hewett for this quarter section the whole section, including it, had been assigned to To-pen-na-be.
The patent was, nevertheless, granted to Hewett becaúse of a prior equity by settlement.
The Supreme Court of Indiana decided that the patent to Hewett was a valid grant of the lahü This decision will not bring the case within the 25th section. Nor can we claim it because of' the title set up under the treaty with the Indians, because neither To-pen-na-be nor any one claiming uriderhim is party to the suit.
This court has decided in the cases of Owings vs. Norwood, (5 Cranch, 344,) and of Henderson vs. Tennessee, (10 How., 311,) that “ in order to give jurisdiction to this court the party must claim the title under the treaty for himself, and not for a third person, in whose title he has no interest.”
This case is, therefore, dismissed for want of jurisdiction..
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Tyler v. Judges of the Court of Registration, 179 U.S. 405 (U.S. 1900)
-
Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. McGREW, 188 U.S. 291 (U.S. 1903)
-
Baltimore & Potomac R.R. Co. v. Hopkins, 130 U.S. 210 (U.S. 1889)
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Owings v. Norwood's Lessee, 5 Cranch 344 (U.S. 1809)
- Henderson v. The State of Tenn., 10 How. 311 (U.S. 1850)