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

In The United States, Appellants v. Joseph Delespine's Heirs, Lazarus and Others (1838), the Supreme Court heard a case involving an 1824 land grant from Spain to Joseph Delespine in Florida. At issue was whether or not this grant was valid under Spanish law at the time of its issuance and if it had been legally conveyed to his heirs after his death. The court found that while there were some irregularities with the original deed, they did not invalidate it as a whole; furthermore, since no evidence existed that any other party had superior title to the property when it passed into Delespine’s possession nor could be shown that he failed to take proper steps for conveying title upon his death, then by default ownership fell on his heirs who inherited according to Spanish law at the time. As such, their claim of ownership over this land was upheld by the court.
In the United States v. Joseph Delespine's Heirs, Lazarus and Others, the Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a certain parcel of land in Florida belonged to the heirs of Joseph Delespine or to the United States. The majority opinion held that it belonged to the United States because they had acquired title through an act of Congress passed in 1822 which granted them ownership over all lands within their boundaries. However, Justice McLean dissented from this decision on two grounds: firstly, he argued that there was no evidence presented at trial showing that any part of this particular tract actually fell within those boundaries; secondly, he contended that even if it did fall within those boundaries then Congress could not have lawfully taken away property rights without due process as required by Article IV Section 2 Clause 3 (the "Contracts Clause") of the US Constitution. In his view these were fundamental principles upon which our nation is founded and should not be disregarded lightly. Therefore he concluded that since there was insufficient proof presented at trial for either party's claim then judgment should have been rendered in favor of Joseph Delespine's heirs instead