APPEAL from the St. Louis Court of Common Pleas.

The confirmation by act of 13th June, 1812, is a grant by the government, which is not to be construed as the deed of an individual, most strongly against the grantor, but by it nothing passes except what is necessary to effectuate the purpose of the grantor.- — -11 Peters’ Reports, Warren Bridge vs. Charles River Bridge; 6 Peters, Arredondo’s ease.

The title under that confirmation is not now more extensive than when the act was passed, and embraces no other land than was then granted.

The extent/of the confirmation is to be ascertained from the evidence upon which Congress acted.

Congress acted alone upon the claim for 6000 arpens, and the petition of Gamache, with the decision thereon by the lieutenant-governor; the survey by Soulard; the second certificate of Soulard, and the testimony of Chouteau and Provonchere.

The effect of the notice of claim is to be ascertained by the law under which it was filed.

All claimants were by law required to specify, in their notices, the extent of their claims. — Act of 1805, sec.4; Land Laws, 123.

The specification of quantity, in a notice filed under this law, is not a part of the description of the land, but is a compliance with a substantial requirement of the law, and is a substantial.part of the claim, as acted upon by Congress.

If the claim to quantity be considered as immaterial, then the action of Congress, being irrespective of the quantity, and based only upon the documents before them, would be restricted by the land north of the river Des Peres, because, under the order of the lieutenant-governor, there was a survey of that land as their com-' mon, which survey was complete, and is not affected by the subsequent certificate of Soulard; nor does the subsequent certificate of Soulard show in what respect the previous survey was incomplete, or what part of the land or lines remained to be surveyed.

If the claim to quantity should he regarded as immaterial, then what is stated above would be the proper result of the construction of the act of Congress : but the claim to quantity, even in ordinary conveyances, is only controlled by calls for such boundaries, or such precise .limits as clearly describe the tract conveyed; and in this case there is no such call, or description of the tract. Again, as the law required the extent or quantity of the claim to be specified, that extent or quantity, when expressed, would control, in the construction of the grant founded thereon, unless there were great certainty in the boundaries or limits of the claim; therefore, the quantity or extent of the claim is not immaterial.

If we construe the act of confirmation, in relation to the claim and its extent, as presented to the government, then these results will follow-:

1. That the village is to have no more than 6000 arpens.

2. That there has been no lawful survey of the commons, under the confirmation.

…

Citation profile

How this case has been treated — in progress