THE DECISIONS Supreme Court of the United States, DECEMBER TERM, 1853. 1 "THE UNITED STATES, Appellants, by the Treaty of 1803, "and which might have V. SAMUEL DAVENPORT'S HEIRS. Grant by Spanish military commander, when entitled to confirmation-cause not dismissed for petition speaking of perfect and showing imperfect title-Grantees under U. S. necessary parties. Two grants of land in the country known as the neutral territory lying between the Sabine River and the Arroyo Hondo, confirmed, namely: one for La Nana granted in 1798, and the other for Los Ormegas, granted in 1795. These grants were made by the commandant of the Spanish post of Nacogdoches, who at that time had power to make inchoate grants. In both cases the grants had defined metes and bounds, and the grantees were placed in possession by a public officer, and exercised many acts of ownership. The evidence of the grants was copies made by the commandant of the post, and also copies made by the Land Office in Texas. These coples, under the circumstances, are sufficient. 1 been perfected into a complete title, under, and in conformity to, the laws, usages and customs of the governments under which the same orig inated, had not the sovereignty of the country been transferred to the United States." Land Laws, 385. The point, it is conceived, is decided in the case of The United States v. Reynes, 9 How. 144, bottom of page, and 145. II. That there is no sufficient evidence of the execution of the grants by Fernandez and Gaudiana. III. That, even if their execution is proved, then they are void; because Fernandez and Gaudiana had no authority to make such large grants. Laws for the sale and distribution of lands. 2 White's Rec. p. 48 to 55; Royal Ordinance of 13th October, 1749, Ibid. 67; Royal Ordinance of 1754, Ibid. 62; O'Reilly's and Gayoso's Regulations, Ibid. 229, 231. IV. That even if their execution is proved, then the grants are void, because no lands were At the date of these grants, it was necessary to severed from the public domain by surveys, obtain the ratification of the civil and military gov giving a certain location previous to the Treaty ernor before the title became perfected. This not having been done in the present case, the title was of 1800 or even 1803, and the descriptions in imperfect, although the petition alleges that it was the grants are so vague, indefinite and uncerperfect, and the District Court had jurisdiction un-tain, that no location of the lands embraced in der the Acts of 1824 and 1844. But the District Court ought not to have decreed that floats should issue where the United States had sold portions of the land, because these vendees were not made parties to the proceedings. THIS was an appeal fr for the District Dirt HIS was an appeal from the District Court trict of Louisiana, under the Acts of 1824 and 1844, so often referred to in cases previously reported. The facts of the case are recited in the opinion of the Court. It was argued by Mr. Cushing (AttorneyGeneral) on the part of the United States, and by Messrs. Baldwin and Johnson, with whom was Mr. Coxe, on behalf of the appellees. The points made on the part of the United States were, I. That the court below had no jurisdiction, and that the decrees are therefore nullities. These grants were complete titles, requiring nothing more to be done to perfect them; and 2] the cases are full of proof, offered "by the claimants, to show that the grants were perfect grants. But the Act of 1824 applies only to cases of incomplete titles, to cases protected them can be given. United States v. Miranda, 16 Pet. 156 to 160; 15 Pet. 184, 215, 275, 319; 10 Pet. 331; 3 How. 787; 5 How. 26; United States v. Boisdore's Heirs, 11 How. 63; Lecompte v. United States, Ibid. 115. V. That the claimants are not within the provisions of the Act of 1824, and there are not the proper averments in their petitions to show that they are entitled to its benefits. The counsel for the appellees made the following points: 1. The territory within which both of these grants were situate was, at their respective dates, within the boundaries of Texas (the Arroyo Hondo being the eastern boundary), and subject to the dominion and control of the commandancy at Nacogdoches, so far as related to the granting of lands. 2. The civil and military commandants at that post were, ex officio, lieutenant-governors, and had authority to grant lands within their province or department. 3. These grants were made by them in manner stated in the petitions, and were in conformity with the laws, usages and customs of |