Southern Appalachian Digital Collections

Western Carolina University (20) View all

Federal court records: Latimer v. Poteet, Meigs Post

Item
?

Item’s are ‘child’ level descriptions to ‘parent’ objects, (e.g. one page of a whole book).

  • [) STATES Lattimer v. Poteel convenience, it is impossible to affirm, as and as such s line was run ; ted ; on the east it must be affirmed, there not being any evidence in this cause. I repeat, the land in controversy was granted before this line was run ; Hawkins ceased running, far west of where the land is situated ; on the east a line, was run and marked by Pickens, which, when marked, was as authentic as that marked by Hawkins, for anything wo know ; the object of each line, no doubt, was the same ; neither concluding the Cherokees, previous to the treaty of Tellico ; which treaty superseded the necessity of ascertaining and marking the true line of the treaty of Holston. from the point east, from where Hawkins ('eased running. From this point (the top of tin- Iron mountain), it continues a line not fixed by the contracting parties ; r*,s ♦and the United States and Cherokees having ceased to have any "- interest in its ascertainment, after the treaty of the Tellico was made, North Carolina had the right to ascertain and settle it for herself, according to some one construction of the treaty of 1791 ; and by which her grantees should be bound, if so settled : or, she may have recognised Pickens's as the true line of the treaty ; if so, I think the state and her grantees bound bv the recognition: so this court held in Patterson v. Jenks, 2 Peters 216, in a similar case ; and for reasons manifestly just. Truly, Pickens's line must he proved to be in conformity to some one construction of the treaty ; and that it is in conformity to the most favorable construction for North Carolina, there can be little doubt. To extend Hawkins's line ea.stwartlly, as the true boundary of the treaty of Holston, will manifestly tend to disturb titles made in reference to another line; as it will (when extended) split Buncombe county, long settled, almost in the centre. I do not, therefore, find myself capable of concurring with the majority of the court in its exten- Again, if North Carolina has construed this treaty, and for herself settled this boundary, by her subsequent acts manifesting her understanding of it, I should not hesitate to adopt that construction, unless in violation of the plain terms of the treaty : I use the language bolden by this court in Patterson v. Jenks, 2 Pet. 231. But the misfortune is, the bill of exceptions sets forth not a single fact ; and the correctness of the instructions of the court below cannot, therefore, be tested by the evidence given on the trial ; whether they are right or wrong, it is impossible for me to say ; they may have been mere abstractions, especially, as to the main fact, whether or not North Carolina had, by her acts, fixed a boundary for herself, be it Pickens's line or another. It follows, I feel bound to concur with a majority of the court, in affirming the judgment, on the presumption that the instructions were proper. This cause came on to be heard, on the transcript of the record from the circuit court of the United States for the district of North Carolina, and was argued by counsel: On consideration whereof, it is now here ordered and adjudged by this court, that the judgment of the said circuit court in this cause be and the same is hereby affirmed, with costs.
Object
?

Object’s are ‘parent’ level descriptions to ‘children’ items, (e.g. a book with pages).