TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

James M'Donald's Heirs v. Smalley

James M’Donald’s Heirs, Appellants v. Freeman Smalley and Others, Appellees

James M'Donald's Heirs v. Smalley, 31 U.S. (6 Pet.) 261 (1832)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided
March 13, 1832
Judges
Marshall
Citations
31 U.S. 2618 L. Ed. 3916 Pet. 2611832 U.S. LEXIS 471
Headnotes
The plaintiffs’ entry aflaml in Ohio was made in the name of a person who-was-dead at the time of the entry. This entry is a nullity in the state of Ohio. The case of Galt et al. v. Galloway, 4 Peters, 332, cited and confirmed.
Summary
APPEAL from the circuit court, of the United' States-for the-d.istrfet of Ohio.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion — Marshall

Mr Chief Justice Marshall delivered tk opinion of the-Court.

This suit was brought in the court of the United States for the seventh circuit, and district of Ohio,- to obtain a- convey-. anee for land which the defendants hold by a senior patent,, and which the plaintiffs claim under a prior entry. The bill was dismissed by the circuit court, arid the plaintiffs have appealed to this court.

Serious doubts exist respecting the validity of the entry under which the claim has been made; and several points have-been discussed at the bar. It is unnecessary to decide more than one of these questions, because that is decisive of the case. David Anderson, in whose name the entry under which the. plaintiffs claim was made, was dead at the time. The entry, therefore, as was determined in Galt and others v. Galloway, 4 Peters, 332, 345 , is, in the state of Ohio, a nullity - This being the foundation of the plaintiffs? title; they must fail in their action.

Counsel at the bar have endeavoured to distinguish this case-from that, by treating the entry as one made in the- name of the wrong person-, through the mistake of the surveyor.

We do not think he is sustained by-.the fact or the law of the case. The decree is affirmed with cost?.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 12 cases

View all citing references →
1835–1836: 11837–1838: 11849–1850: 11853–1854: 21857–1858: 11861–1862: 11875–1876: 11891–1892: 11919–1920: 11945–1946: 218352026peak 1853 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Stubblefield v. Boggs2 Ohio St. (N.S.) 216 (1853)
  2. McArthur's Heirs v. Dun's Heirs48 U.S. (7 How.) 262 (1849)
  3. Thomas v. Wyatt25 Mo. 24 (1857)
  4. McGrew v. Byrd255 F. 759 (8th Cir. 1919)
  5. Galloway v. Finley37 U.S. (12 Pet.) 264 (1838)
  6. Hermanos v. Tribunal de Contribuciones de Puerto Rico66 P.R. Dec. 560 (1946)

Most recent

  1. Hermanos v. Tax Court of Puerto Rico66 P.R. 531 (1946)
  2. Hermanos v. Tribunal de Contribuciones de Puerto Rico66 P.R. Dec. 560 (1946)
  3. McGrew v. Byrd255 F. 759 (8th Cir. 1919)
  4. De La Vergne Refrigerating Mach. Co. v. Featherstone49 F. 916 (1892)
  5. Oliver v. Forbes17 Kan. 113 (1876)
  6. Tarver v. Smith38 Ala. 135 (1861)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Galt v. Galloway, 29 U.S. (4 Pet.) 332 (1830) 36

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list