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

1 City of Carondelet vs. the United States: Brief for the United States 1880s

handle is hein.trials/adfp0001 and id is 1 raw text is: UNITED STATES COURT OF CLAIMS. No. 1813. THE CITY OF CARONDELET vs. THE UNITED STATES. BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES. This case is now presented to this court upon an amended petition, and de- mand is made for compensation for land taken for the use of the government. The plaintiff, which was at the time of the transaction a corporation in the State of Missouri, made a deed to the United States for seventeen hundred and two acres, more or less, of land known as the Jefferson Barracks tract. The deed to this tract is set out on page 154 of the record of the evidence of the plaintiff. It is charged that this deed was obtained without consideration; by fraud, and by an oppressive use of power by the United States. A brief reference to the facts and circumstances relating to this transaction will enable the court to determine as to how much of foundation there is for these grave charges. Carondelet was a village or hamlet at the time of the Louisiana purchase, a few miles below the then village, and now city, of St. Louis. In 1826, it ap- pears by the testimony that there were about forty houses in Carondelet; they were built generally with pickets in the ground, covered with mud, or filled in with mud. It was a small French village. The Americans had not come n, and it was supported by the sale of wood in St. Louis. Defendant's evi- idence, pp. 2 and 3. It will be remembered that the Louisiana Territory had been subjected, be- fore our purchase, to the governments successively of France and Spain. New Orleans was settled in 1718. The French held the Louisiana Territory until 1762. It was then ceded to Spain and retroceded to France in 1800. In 1803 it was ceded to the United States. Previous to the acquisition of the Territory by the United States, its land system, if such it can be called, was peculiar. The grants to individuals seem to have been made from favoritism, military or civil service, and generally to men of consideration. The villagers held their land in common. That which was cultivated was enclosed. They had, besides, the privilege, as in the case of Carondelet, to obtain wood within certain limits from the royal domain. These commons were not enclosed, and remained part of the then wilderness. They were net considered as severed from the royal domain, and were only subject to the right of obtaining wood for the use of the inhabitants. The only documentary proof of title from the representative of the King of Spain which the plaintiff presents is the reply of the Lieutenant Governor Tru- dean to the petition of Mr. Gamacbe, and the certificate of the surveyor, dated December 25, 1797, to be found on pages 57 and 58 of the records. The certificate of the same surveyor in which he endeavors to. explain the reason why the survey was not extended beyond the Des Peres, to be found on the same page, dated February 18, 1806, ten years after the alleged grant, can- not be regarded in anty sense as a muniment of title. The following are the pe- tition of Gamache, the reply of Lieutenant Governor Trudeau, and the certifi- cate of the surveyor Soulard :

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