Joy v. City Of St. Louis

201 U.S. 332 (1906)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

This is an action of ejectment to recover certain lands which was filed in the Circuit Court. The petition was dismissed by the court solely upon the ground that the court was without jurisdiction, and the trial judge so certified the fact. Title to the land is traced back to a grant to an act of Congress, approved March 2, 1805, entitled 'An act for the ascertaining and adjusting the titles and claims to land, within the Territory of Orleans, and the District of Louisiana,' such concession having been made to one Louis Labeaume, of 360 arpents of land, by the lieutenant governor of the Spanish Province of Upper Louisiana, on February 15, 1799, and it was duly surveyed and certified April 10, 1799. By virtue of the first section of an act of Congress, approved June 13, 1812, entitled 'An act making further provision for settling the claims to land in the Territory of Missouri,' the title in fee simple to said concession, survey, confirmation, and outlot was confirmed and granted to Labeaume. Pursuant to an act of Congress, approved on March 3, 1807, letters patent of the United States were issued to Labeaume. P eventually became the owner of the land in question. It turns out there was massive accretion to the land from the Mississippi river on the western border of the property. Ds entered upon the premises on the sixteenth of June, 1896, claiming to own the same as a wharf. P and D disputed the ownership of this new land. P claimed that the dispute should be decided by the proper construction and legal effect of the confirmation, acts of Congress, and letters patent wherein the suit arises under the laws of the United States. P demanded judgment for the recovery of the premises, five thousand dollars for the unlawful withholding of the same, and one hundred dollars for monthly rents and profits, from the rendition of judgment until the possession of the premises is delivered to P. Ds, a manufacturing company and City (D) asserted that the case had nothing to do with federal law as it was purely a matter to be decided by state law. The circuit court dismissed the petition. P appealed.