| No search history |
Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

Moses E. Levy, appellant, brought a case against Fernando de la Maza Arredondo and Juan de Entralgo, appellees. The dispute was over the ownership of certain lands in Florida that had been granted to Levy by Spain prior to its cession of Florida to the United States. The Supreme Court held that although the grant from Spain was valid under Spanish law at the time it was made, it did not confer any title upon Levy since he could not have acquired any legal rights or interests in land within an area which belonged to another sovereign power without its consent. Therefore, because no such consent had been given by either Spain or the United States when they entered into their treaty transferring sovereignty over Florida from one country to another, Levy's claim failed and his appeal was denied.
In this case, Moses E. Levy appealed the decision of a lower court that had ruled in favor of Fernando de la Maza Arredondo and Juan de Entralgo. The dispute centered around an 1822 contract between Levy and Arredondo for the purchase of land in Florida Territory. In his appeal to the Supreme Court, Levy argued that he was entitled to damages because he had been prevented from taking possession of the property due to Spanish military occupation at the time when title passed under their agreement. However, Chief Justice Taney wrote a dissenting opinion stating that since Spain still held sovereignty over Florida at the time when title passed under their agreement, it would be impossible for either party to have taken possession or exercised any rights with respect thereto until after Spain ceded its authority over Florida by treaty with United States in 1819-1821; thus making it impossible for either party to claim damages based on nonperformance prior thereto. Furthermore, Taney stated that even if there were grounds for claiming damages due to nonperformance before 1819-1821 then such claims should be addressed through diplomatic channels rather than through judicial proceedings as they are matters outside of U.S jurisdiction and beyond its power or control