The 2d section directs the enrolled law, the grant, and all deeds, contracts, &c. relative to the purchase, to be expunged from the records of the state, &c. The 3d section declares that neither the law nor the grant, nor any other conveyance, or agreement relative thereto, shall be received in evidence in any court of law or equity in the state so far as to establish a right to the territory or any part thereof, but they may be received in evidence in private actions between individuals for the recovery of money paid upon pretended sales, &c. The 4th section provides for the repayment of money, funded stock, &c. which may have been paid into the treasury, provided it was then remaining therein, and provided the repayment should be demanded within eight months from that time. Does the case now under consideration come within this prohibitory section of the constitution? north of the equator intersects the same, running thence along the same parallel of latitude a due east course to the Tombigby river, thence up the said Tombigby river to where the latitude of 32 deg. To this plea the plaintiff below demurred, and the defendant joined in demurrer. The U.S. Supreme Court heard the case on Writ of Error. And the jury further find, that one eighth part of the said territory, granted to the said lords proprietors, and called Carolina as aforesaid, which eighth part belonged to Sir George Carteret, and was not surrendered as aforesaid, was afterwards divided and set off in severalty to the heirs of the said Sir George Carteret in that part of said territory which was afterwards made a colony by the name of North Carolina. See the Federalist, and Journals of House of Rep. 21st August, 1789. An attempt was made in congress to establish the principle that the land belonged to the United States; but the advocates of that doctrine were overruled by a majority. To part with it is to commit a species of political suicide. That afterwards, on the twentieth day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and sixty-four, the said King of Great Britain, by his commission under the great seal of Great Britain, did constitute and appoint James Wright, Esq.
intersects the same, thence along the same parallel of latitude a due west course to the Mississippi; thence down the said river, to the place of beginning; the said described tract containing 500,000 acres, and is the same which was conveyed by Nathaniel Prime to Oliver Phelps, by deed dated the 27th of February, 1796, and of which the said Phelps conveyed four fifths to Benjamin Hichborn, and the said Peck by deed dated the 8th of December, 1800; the said tract of 500,000 acres, being part of a tract which James Greenleaf conveyed to the said N. Prime, by deed dated the 23d of September, 1795, and is parcel of that tract which James Gunn, Mathew M'Allister, George Walker, Zachariah Cox, Jacob Walburger, William Longstreet and Wade Hampton, by deed dated 22d of August, 1795, conveyed to the said James Greenleaf; the same being part of that tract which was granted by letters patent under the great seal of the state of Georgia, and the signature of George Matthews, Esq. If the principle be conceded, that an act of the supreme sovereign power might be declared null by a court, in consequence of the means which procured it, still would there be much difficulty in saying to what extent those means much be applied to produce this effect. In considering this very interesting question, we immediately ask ourselves what is a contract? 'That it is our royal will and pleasure for the present, as aforesaid, to reserve under our sovereignty, protection and dominion for the use of the said Indians all the land and territories not included within the limits of our said three new governments, or within the limits of the territory granted to the Hudson's Bay Company, as also all the land and territories lying to the westward of the sources of the rivers which fall into the sea from the west and north-west as aforesaid; and we do hereby strictly forbid, on pain of our displeasure, all our loving subjects from making any purchases or settlements whatever, or taking possession of any of the lands above reserved, without our special leave and license for that purpose first obtained.'. Robert Fletcher and especially John Peck were speculators in the Yazoo lands. It is not intended to speak with disrespect of the legislature of Georgia, or of its acts.
However improper it may be, and however severely the offenders may be punished, if guilty of bribery, yet the grossest corruption will not authorize a judicial tribunal in disregarding the law. But if they were disannexed by the proclamation, they were reannexed three months afterwards by the commission to Governor Wright, on the 20th of January, 1764. The title of the lands was in the crown. ', That Peck, in his deed to Fletcher, covenanted 'that the state of Georgia aforesaid was, at the time of the passing of the act of the legislature thereof, (entitled as aforesaid,) legally seised in fee of the soil thereof, subject only to the extinguishment of part of the Indian title thereon. 21st May, 1779, vol. The exercise of that right, even by parliament itself, was one of the violation of right upon which the revolution was founded; as appears by the declaration of independence, the address to the people of Quebec, and other public documents of the time. Nor would it be difficult, with the same view, for laws to be framed which would bring the conduct of individuals under the review of adequate tribunals, and make them suffer under the consequences of their own immoral conduct. The U.S. Supreme Court determined, under the Contracts Clause of the. That his late majesty, Charles the second, King of Great Britain, by his letters patent under the great seal of Great Britain, bearing date the thirtieth day of June, in the seventeenth year of his reign, did grant unto Edward Earl of Clarendon, George Duke of Albemarle, William Earl of Craven, John Lord Berkeley, Antony Lord Ashby, Sir George Carteret, Sir John Colleton, and Sir William Berkeley, therein called lords proprietors, and their heirs and assigns, all that province, territory, or tract of ground, situate, lying and being in North America, and described as follows: extending north and eastward as far as the north end of Carahtuke river or gullet, upon a straight westerly line to Wyonoahe creek, which lies within or about the degrees of thirty-six and thirty minutes of northern latitude, and so west in a direct line as far as the South Seas, and south and westward as far as the degrees of twenty-nine inclusive, northern latitude, and so west in a direct line as far as the South Seas, (which territory was called Carolina,) together with all ports, harbours, bays, rivers, soil, land, fields, woods, lakes, and other rights and privileges therein named; that the said lords proprietors, grantees aforesaid, afterwards, by force of said grant, entered upon and took possession of said territory, and established within the same many settlements, and erected therein fortifications and posts of defence. And that the legislature of the said state at the time of passing the act of sale aforesaid, had good right to sell and dispose of the same in manner pointed out by the said act. That afterwards, on the eighteenth day of May aforesaid, the said congress resolved, that further day be given for the said hearing, and appointed the first Monday in September, then next ensuing, for that purpose. The etymology, the classical signification, and the civil law idea of the word, will all support it. A later Chief Justice, William H. Rehnquist, wrote that Fletcher v. Peck, "represented an attempt by Chief Justice Marshall to extend the protection of the contract clause to infant business". It forfeits the estate of Fletcher for a crime not committed by himself, but by those from whom he purchased. By the declaration of independence the several states were declared to be free, sovereign and independent states; and the sovereignty of each, not of the whole, was the principle of the revolution; there was no connection between them, but that of necessity and self defence, and in what manner each should contribute to the common cause, was a matter left to the discretion of each of the states.
Learn more about this case. If the interest in Georgia was nothing more than a pre-emptive right, how could that be called a fee-simple, which was nothing more than a power to acquire a fee-simple by purchase, when the proprietors should be pleased to sell? And that divers of the said members, to whom the said promises were made, were unduly influenced thereby, and, under such influence, did vote for the passing of the said bill; by reason whereof the said law was a nullity, &c. and so the title of the state of Georgia did not pass to the said Peck, &c. The plea to this count, after protesting that the promises it alleges were not made, avers, that until after the purchase made from the original grantees by James Greenleaf, under whom the said Peck claims, neither the said James Greenleaf, nor the said Peck, nor any of the mesne vendors between the said Greenleaf and Peck, had any notice or knowledge that any such promises or assurances were made by the said original grantees, or either of them, to any of the members of the legislature of the state of Georgia. And that they should be separated from the province of South Carolina, and be made a colony independent thereof, save only in the command of their militia. Journal of Senate, 7th September, 1789. Can, then, one nation be said to be seised of a fee-simple in lands, the right of soil of which is in another nation? It (that is, the court of Spain) sets up a claim to possessions within the state of Georgia, founded on her (Spain) having rescued them by force from the British during the late war. That, in November, 1763, a commission was issued to the Governor of Georgia, in which the boundaries of that province are described, as extending westward to the Mississippi. The southern limits of Georgia depend chiefly on, first, the charter of South Carolina, &c. Secondly, on the proclamation of the British king, in one thousand seven hundred and sixty-three, establishing the boundary between Georgia and Florida, to begin on the Mississippi, in thirty-one degrees of north latitude, and running eastwardly to the Apalachicola, &c. That afterwards, on the seventh day of December, of the same year, the commissioners of the United States for settling the aforesaid disputes, in their communications with those of the King of Spain, express themselves as follows, to wit: 'In this stage of their (meaning the United States) government, the several boundaries were fixed, and particularly the southern boundary of Georgia, the one now brought into question by Spain. The acts of the supreme power of a country must be considered pure for the same reason that all sovereign acts must be considered just; because there is no power that can declare them otherwise.
It would be strange if a contract to convey was secured by the constitution, while an absolute conveyance remained unprotected. Since, then, in fact, a grant is a contract executed, the obligation of which still continues, and since the constitution uses the general term contract, without distinguishing between those which are executory and those which are executed, it must be construed to comprehend the latter as well as the former. The declarations and claims of Georgia could not affect the rights of the United States. This is a question of much delicacy, and more fitted for a diplomatic or legislative than a judicial inquiry. Vattel, b. It is not like our tenures; they have no idea of a title to the soil itself. A fee-simple estate may be held in reversion, but our law will not admit the idea of its being limited after a fee-simple. At the beginning of the revolution the lands were within the bounds of Georgia. Even though the land conveyance was the result of fraud and corruption, which the Court acknowledged was “deplorable,” it does not mean that the State can unwind a land deal upon which others relied. All the western lands of the royal governments were wholly disannexed from the colonies, and reserved for the use of the Indians.