Slidell v. Grandjean
Citations
- 111 U.S. 412
- 4 S. Ct. 475
- 28 L. Ed. 321
- 1883 U.S. LEXIS 1073
Syllabus
<p>Public Land — JSoumas Grant — Spanish Custom — Construction of Statutes.</p> <p>In an order by a Spanish governor of Louisiana recognizing an Indian grant and directing the issue of “a complete title,” these words, as translated, refer to the instruments which constitute the evidence of title, and not to the estate or interest conveyed.</p> <p>It was a usage of the Spanish government, in granting lands on the river, to reserve lands in the rear of the grants to the depth of forty arpents, the grantee of the river front having the preference right to purchase the reservation.</p> <p>Usages an' customs respecting the alienation of lands prevailing in Louisiana previous to its acquisition by the United States have, to a great extent, the efficacy of law, and are to be respected in considering the rights of grantees of the former government.</p> <p>When established, such usages and customs control the construction and qualify and limit the force of positive enactments.</p> <p>The original Houmas .grant in Louisiana from the Indians, on the 5th of October, 1774, had a defined length on the river Mississippi, and designated coterminous proprietors to the north and to the south, but no depth to the grant was named. The Spanish governor executed a formal grant of the tract, describing it as of the common depth of forty arpents. Two years later, on the petition of the grantee, the governor directed his adjutant to give the petitioner the land which might be vacant after forty arpents in depth. This was done by a survey running the northern and southern boundaries on courses from the Mississippi for forty arpents and for two arpents additional; Held, That, in view of the Spanish usages, and of the action of the Spanish authorities, and of the action of Congress and of United States officials, all of which are referred to, the concession extended in the designated courses to the depth of eighty arpents from the river.</p> <p>In case of doubt, a legislative grant should alwa
Judges: Field
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
41 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. KentuckySupreme Court· 1896-03-30· cited 126×
- Knoxville Water Co. v. KnoxvilleSupreme Court· 1906-01-02· cited 124×
- Russell v. SebastianSupreme Court· 1914-04-06· cited 112×
- Coosaw Mining Co. v. South CarolinaSupreme Court· 1892-04-04· cited 109×
- United States v. GoltraSupreme Court· 1941-02-03· cited 89×
- Broad River Power Co. v. South Carolina Ex Rel. DanielSupreme Court· 1930-05-26· cited 51×
- Robert T. Foley Co. v. Washington Suburban Sanitary CommissionCourt of Appeals of Maryland· 1978-07-14· cited 40×
- State v. Portsmouth Savings BankIndiana Supreme Court· 1886-05-24· cited 39×
- Gregory v. HartleySupreme Court· 1885-03-16· cited 36×
- Sioux Tribe of Indians v. United StatesCourt of Claims· 1942-06-01· cited 30×
- Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1947-03-03· cited 23×
- Corkran Oil & Development Co. v. ArnaudetSupreme Court of Louisiana· 1903-11-03· cited 22×
- Owensboro v. Owensboro Water Works Co. of OwensboroSupreme Court· 1917-03-06· cited 14×
- Jewell Ridge Coal Corp. v. Local No. 6167, United Mine WorkersW.D. Virginia· 1944-01-25· cited 14×
- State v. PlanzNorth Dakota Supreme Court· 1981-04-03· cited 12×
- In re State to Register Title to Real Property Situate at MoililiHawaii Supreme Court· 1967-02-02· cited 12×
- Sena v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1903-04-06· cited 10×
- Richmond, Fredericksburg & Potomac Railroad v. Richmond, Fredericksburg & Potomac & Richmond & Petersburg Railroad Connection Co.Supreme Court of Virginia· 1926-06-17· cited 10×
- Turnpike Co. v. Davidson CountyTennessee Supreme Court· 1901-01-19· cited 7×
- President & Trustees of Commons v. McClureIllinois Supreme Court· 1897-05-10· cited 6×
Cites
3 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.