Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

11 U.S. 115

The United States v. Jonah Crosby

Supreme Court of the United States

February 24, 1812

Supreme Court of the United States · decided 1812-02-24

<p>The titieto land can be acquired and lost only in the htóniaér. prescribed by thé law o£ jj place where-. s.uch lani * s,t'4ate'</p>

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““The court entertain no doubt on the subject; and are clearly of opinion that the title to land can be acquired and lost only in the manner prescribed by the law of the place where such land is situate.””

quoted by 2 later decisions, including Amaya v. Stanolind Oil & Gas Co., Gross Income Tax Division v. Bartlett

Relies on Bingham v. Morris

Cited in Bouvier (1914)’s definition of “Ships Of War” · Case Law’s definition of “Lex loci rei sitae (real estate)”

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Affirmed · 7–0 · Decided 1812-02-24

How this case has been cited

Cited by 446 later decisions (41 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2021 · most notably Banco Nacional De Cuba v. Sabbatino (1964), Verlinden B. v. v. Central Bank of Nigeria (1983)

193 federal appellate · 47 district · 36 state decisions — followed in 17 states

8301812182018301840185018601870188018901900191019201930194019501960197019801990200020102020decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1

THIS case is fully stated in the following opinion of this Court, which was delivered by

¶2

STORY, Justice, on the 24th of February, all the judges being present.

¶3

A writ of intrusion was brought by the United States against the Defendant in error to recover possession of an undivided part of certain land lying within the district of Maine. Upon the trial of the cause in the district Court of that district, a special verdict was found by the jury, upon which the same Court gave judgment in favor of the Defendant in error. This judgment was afterwards affirmed in the Circuit Court of Massachusetts, and is now before the Supreme Court for a final decision.

¶4

By the special verdict it appears that the claim of the United States to the land in controversy is under one Nathaniel Dowse, who derived his title, if any, from an instrument stated at large in the same verdict, and executed in his favor by one John Nelson. The instrument is without a seal and was executed at the Island of Grenada, in the West Indies, before a notary public, according to the mode prescribed, by the existing laws, to pass real estate in that colony—and both parties were, at that time residents therein.

¶5

By the laws of Massachusetts, no estate of freehold in land can be conveyed unless by a deed or conveyance under the hand and seal of the party—and to perfect the title as against strangers, it is further requisite that the deed should be acknowledged before a proper magistrate, and recorded in the registry of deeds for the county where the land lies.

¶6

The question presented for consideration, is whether the lex loci contractus or the lex loci rei sitae is to govern in the disposal of real estates.

¶7

The Court entertain no doubt on the subject; and are clearly of opinion that the title to land can be acquired and lost only in the manner prescribed by the law of the place where such land is situate. The judgment of the Circuit Court must, therefore, be affirmed.

/11/us/115 · .json · Public domain