Johnny vs Mcintosh the treaty ending the Revolutionary War, Great Britain

relinquished any claim to “proprietary and territorial rights of

Facts: the United States.”Thus, the United States owned the
entirety of the lands which were situated within the
Plaintiffs sought to have certain land grants purportedly made
boundaries of the states existing at that time. It follows that
by Indian tribal chiefs, recognized by the United States
those natives who lived within such boundaries did not
government.
own title to the land. Therefore, the Plaintiff does not have
Thomas Johnson, one of the first Supreme Court justices, a title recognizable by the United States.
bought land from Piankeshaw Native American tribes in
The Court, in deciding this case, was faced with a situation
1773 and 1775.
where the customs of ownership of lands as between two
The plaintiffs were lessees of Thomas Johnson's distinct cultures were at odds. The native culture did not
descendants, who had inherited the land. recognize ownership in quite the same way as the United
States culture. This case is as much a historical footnote as it
The defendant, William M'Intosh (pronounced "McIntosh"), is a rule of property law one might see today.
subsequently obtained a land patent, according to the facts
as Marshall accepted them, to this same land from the United
States federal government. In fact, the two parcels did not
overlap at all. Further, there is evidence that the parties were
aware the tracts did not overlap and purposely misrepresented Chavez vs United States
the facts to the court to obtain a ruling.
Facts:
The plaintiffs brought an action for ejectment against M'Intosh
in the United States District Court for the District of Illinois, This case was an appeal from a judgement of the court of
contending that their chain of title was superior by virtue of private land claims refusing to confirm the title of the appellant
Johnson's purchases. The District Court dismissed the claim to some 5,000 acres of land in New Mexico, about 1 league
on the grounds that the Piankeshaw were not able to convey from the Manzano grant. The title is evidenced by a grant by
the land. the territorial deputation of New Mexico, made in 1831, and the
first question in the case relates to the authority of that body to
At issue were two purported grants of land by Indian tribes to make the grant.
private individuals, one in 1773 and the other 1775. The lands
constituted the Illinois and Piankeshaw nations. Here, the
Plaintiff sought to have the United States government
recognize the Plaintiff’s title to the lands, which were alleged to
have passed under the grants.

Issue: May Indian tribes give a legally recognizable title in land

to private individuals, such that the title may be received by the
private person and upheld against any claims by courts of the
United States?

Held:

No. The judgment of the District Court of Illinois denying the

Plaintiff’s right to assert title to lands purportedly granted is
affirmed.

The rules of property must be drawn from and decided by the

nation in which the property which is the subject matter of the
lawsuit lies. Due to the historical precedents established by
the European discovery of this North America and the
subsequent conquest and division thereof, the rule was
that among the nations of Europe, title properly belonged
to the nation which discovered the new land.

Incident to the principle that title belonged to the nation

which discovered the new land, was the subsequent
diminishment of the natives ability to dispose of their land.
This impairment of native sovereignty was subject to the
recognition that the natives could live on the land, but that
they could not grant the land to a private individual. This
was the case because the land itself was subject to the
dominion and control of the nation which discovered and
conquered it.

The remaining question is whether the United States

accepted or rejected the historical principle. According to