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

In the case of Oliver O'Hara and Others v. The United States, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether or not a certain piece of land in Missouri belonged to private individuals or if it had been granted by Congress to the state for public use. The appellants argued that they were entitled to ownership because they had purchased it from an individual who held title prior to its being granted by Congress. However, the appellees contended that since this land was part of a larger tract which had been ceded by France and then subsequently granted by Congress, all rights associated with it reverted back to the federal government upon grant. After examining both sides’ arguments as well as relevant documents pertaining to French and American claims on this property, the court ultimately ruled in favor of appellees; finding that any right previously held over this particular parcel was extinguished when it became part of a larger tract given away under Congressional authority.
In Oliver O'Hara and Others v. The United States, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a certain tract of land in Missouri had been legally acquired by the United States from France under the Louisiana Purchase Treaty. In a 5-4 decision, the majority held that it had not been validly acquired because there were irregularities in how it was obtained. However, Justice McLean dissented on this point and argued that while he did not condone any irregularity or fraud committed during its acquisition, he believed that such matters should be left for Congress to address rather than being decided by judicial review. He further noted that if Congress chose to recognize an act as valid despite any irregularities then courts should also do so since they are bound by Congressional action unless it is unconstitutional or otherwise illegal according to established law. As such, Justice McLean concluded his dissent with a call for deference towards legislative authority when considering questions of title and possession over public lands like those at issue here.