Marsh v. Brooks
Supreme Court of the United States
This case was brpuglit up, by writ of error, from the District Court of the United States for the Southern’ District of Iowa.
Read the full summary
This case was brpuglit up, by writ of error, from the District Court of the United States for the Southern’ District of Iowa. It was before this court at January term, 1850, and is reported in 8 Howard, 223. The children and heirs of Thomas F. Reddick, (the defendants in error,) were the plaintiffs in the- court below, having brought their action by writ of right, according to the practice ' of the courts in Iowa, tó recover 640 acres of land upon the right bank of the Mississippi River. ■ The acts of Congress and the patent to Reddick are set forth in 8 Howard, to which the reader is…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Catron
This case was before us in .1850, and is reported in 8 Howard. We then'held that as the patent to Reddick’s heirs of 1839 was younger than the treaty of 1824, and the confirming act of 1836, by which the title of the United States was primd facie vested in the Sac and Fox half-breeds, the patent could not prevail. Nor could its recitals be relied on to give it legal effect from an earlier date than it had on its face.
The judgment was then reversed, and the cause remanded. for another trial, and an intimation given, that probably additional evidence might be adduced on a subsequent trial,…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Landes v. BrantSupreme Court of the United States · 1851
3Cited by4 opinions
- United States v. Santa Fe Pacific RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1942
- Aubuchon v. AmesSupreme Court of Missouri · 1858
- ABC Beverage Corporation v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2014
- Gutbrecht v. Prospect Park & Coney Island RailroadNew York Supreme Court · 1882