About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

Eneas McFaul, Plaintiff in Error, v. James C. Ramsey U.S. 523 (1858)

handle is hein.slavery/ussccases0183 and id is 1 raw text is: DECEMBER TERM, 1857. .HcFaul v. Ramqey. fifth section of the judiciary act. The -record does not show that it draws in question any treaty, statute, or authority, exer- cised under the United States; or the validity of any State statute, for repugnancy to the-Constitution of the United States; or the construction of any clause of the Constitution; or of a treaty or statute commission held under the United States. It is a mere questioirof boundary between two neighbors, both admitted to have valid, rants from the United States. It is a question of fact, depending on monuments to be found on the ground, documents in the land office, or the opinion of experts or surveyors appointed by the court or the parties. If the accident to the controversy that both parties claim title under the United States should be considered as sufficient to bring it within our jurisdiction, then every controversy involving the title to such lands, whether it involve the inheritance, parti- tion, devise, or sale of it, may, with equal propriety, be subject to the examination of this court in all time to come. This question is not new; -it was decided in the case of Mc- Donough v. Millaudon, 3 How., 693, where this court refused to entertain jurisdiction to review the judgment of a State court, ascertaining the boundaries between complete grants under the French Government, as it did not call in question either the construction or the validity of the treaty, or the title to the land held'under it. (See also Kennedy v. Hunt, 7 How., 593.) It is therefore ordered that this case be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. ENEAS McFAUL, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, V. JAMES C. RAMISEY. Where the only bills of exception were to the refusal of the court to grant a con- tinuance and change the venue, the judgment of the court below must be affirmed, as these matters are not the subjects of review by this court. The laws -of Iowa permitting a demurrer only when the petition by a fair and nat- ural construction does not show a substantial cause of action, a demurrer to part of the petition in this case was properly overruled. THIS case was brought up, by writ of error, from the District Court of the United States for the district'of Iowa. The case is stated in the opinion of the court. It was argued by M r. _Reverdy Tohnson and rf. _Reverdy John- son, jun., for the plaintiff in error, and by Mr. Norris for the defendant. Mr. Justice GRIER deliv'red the opinion of the court. Ramsey, the plaintiff below, instituted this suit in the Dis-

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most