Johnson v. M’Intosh, Sup Ct of the US (1823) (bad title thru Indian)

a.       Facts- Johnson (P) inherited land from his father, which he bought from two Indian Chiefs. The Chiefs sold the land under the authority of their tribe. M’Intosh (D) then received title for said land from the US Government. Johnson filed suit for ejectment (taking back of owned property)

b.      Procedural History- Trial court returned a verdict for the D. P appealed up to the Sup Ct of US

c.       Issue- Can a title for land, conveyed by Indian tribes, to private individuals be recognized in the Courts of the US?

d.      Holding- US Courts cannot recognize a title conveyed by Indian tribes (mere occupants) to an individual.

e.       Rationale-

                                                              i.      The Europeans “discovered” the land and conquered

                                                            ii.      the Indians, effectively assuming title of the land.

                                                          iii.      While Indians were still afforded “occupancy” rights, they no longer had “title” rights.

                                                          iv.      Upon gaining independence, the British conveyed "proprietary and territorial rights of the United States". Thus, the US owns title to all land (US is the first owner)

f.       Rule- Titles conveyed by Courts of the US will always trump titles conveyed by Indians. The chain of titles, for all parcels of land, begin with the US Govt

                                                              i.      Mere occupancy does not constitute right to convey title

g.      Notes

                                                              i.      The European “discovered” the land because “the character and religion of its inhabitants afforded an apology for considering them as a people over whom the superior genius of Europe might claim ascendency”. Basically, the Indians were too stupid to claim the land?

                                                            ii.      Occupancy theory and the principle of first in time-

1.      Hugo Grotius: the riches of the earth were initially held in common, nobody owned anything. But because of greed, there was a need to establish “private property”, to preserve peace.

                                                          iii.      The reason why Europe agreed among them that “discovery” would be the rule because “discovery” itself was a great endeavor.

                                                          iv.      Rule of “Discovery”: anything that was not known/occupied by Christians is fair game for “Discovery”

                                                            v.      Discovery is what gives you the right to conquer