Supreme Court of the United States, 1832

James M'Donald's Heirs v. Smalley

Supreme Court of the United States · Decided March 13, 1832 · Marshall

31 U.S. 261; 8 L. Ed. 391; 6 Pet. 261; 1832 U.S. LEXIS 471 (United States Reports)

Counsel

This case was argued by Messrs Vinton and Doddridge, for the appellants; and by Messrs Corwin and Bibb,, for the appellees.

Cases that cite this one

8 later published cases cite this decision.

McGrew v. Byrd (8th Cir. 1919)
Thomas v. Wyatt (Mo. 1857)
McArthur's Heirs v. Dun's Heirs (Supreme Court of the United States 1849)
Hermanos v. Tax Court of Puerto Rico (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico 1946)
Hermanos v. Tribunal de Contribuciones de Puerto Rico (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico 1946)
De La Vergne Refrigerating Mach. Co. v. Featherstone (U.S. Circuit Court for the Northern District of Illnois 1892)
Oliver v. Forbes (Kan. 1876)
Price v. Johnston (Ohio 1853)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

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?.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.