This is an action of ejectment for 97 acres of land in Madison County,Florida, situatednear the boundaryline between that stateandGeorgia.JamesM.Groover and others, sued Andrew J.Coffee.

It is brought here for review because the defendant's title to the land in controversy was claimed by him under a grant made by the United States to the state of Florida, and by the state of Florida to the defendant,which title was set aside by the state court in favor of the plaintiffs title derived under a conflicting grant from the state of Georgia.

The title claimed by the defendant rested, not only on a grant of the United States, but on a delimitation of territory under a treatybetween the UnitedStates and Spain. The case is one of conflicting grants of the same land lying near the boundary line between Georgiaand Florida. The fact that the land in controversy was covered by both grants was settled by the jury. It is conceded to lie within the bounds of Florida according to the line recently agreed upon by the two states. The occasion of conflicting grants being madewas the uncertainlocation,at the time, of the true boundaryline referredto, and the fact that Georgiaclaimedone line, and the United States and Florida claimedanother.

The plaintiffs, to maintain their title to the land in dispute, gave in evidence, on the trial, two patents from the state of Georgia to one James Groover, eachbearing date the first day of January, 1842,--onefor 226.2 acres ofland,describedas situate in the Fifteenth district of Irwin county, Georgia, and known and distinguished in the plan of said district by the number 199, and having the shape, form, and marks shown by a plat annexed; the other patent being for 250.2 acres of land, situate in the same district and county,known and distinguishedby the number 200, and having the shape, form, and marks shown by a plat annexed. The plats showed that the two lots joined each other east and west, and that they were both bounded on the southby a commonline called on the plats 'Florida Line;' and it was testified that the line thus marked on the plats was a line known as the'Watson Line.' Mesne conveyances were then given in evidence showing that said lots were conveyed by James Groover to Thomas A. Groover, by deeddated

December 31, 1855, and by Thomas A. Groover to Charles A. Groover, by deed dated July 8, 1860; and it was further shown that Charles A. Groover died in 1866, and that the plaintiffs were his heirs at law. Evidencewas also given tending to show that the said patentee and grantees, respectively, had possession of said lands under and in conformity with their said titles until the plaintiffs were ousted by the defendant in1876.

Evidencewas further givento show that another line, called the 'McNeil Line,' ran about 14 chains north of the Watson line and parallel thereto, and that the land in controversy lay between the said two lines, having the Watson line on the south, and the McNeil line on the north. Also, that a third line, called the 'Orr and Whitner Line,' ran still further north than eitherof the aforesaidlines, whichOrr and Whitner line was conceded to be the boundaryline between the states ofGeorgia and Florida, as recently fixed by mutual agreement between the two states, by certain laws and resolutions of their respective legislatures, confirmed by act of congress.

The plaintiffs also introduced evidence tending to show that the Watson line was formerly considered the state line betweenGeorgiaandFlorida;that Georgians worked the Georgia roads to the Watson line, and Floridians worked the Florida roads to that line; that as far back as one of the witnesses couldremember,he being for many years a lawyerand judgein one of the border counties of Georgia, that state had claimed and exercised jurisdiction to the Watsonline, until the Orr and Whitner line was agreed upon as the boundary between the two states; that the people living north of the Watson line did jury duty, and voted in Georgia; that the wills of people dying there were probated in the Georgia courts, and their estates were administered upon in those courts; that the Georgia courts took jurisdictionof offenses committedas far south as the Watsonline, and tried cases in which people living there were interested; that the officers of the Georgia courts executed writs as far south as that line; that persons were tried in Georgia foroffenses committed between that line and the Orr and Whitner line. And, on theother hand, as correctly statedby the supreme court of Floridain its opinion,there is nothing in the record, nor in the history of the governmentof the territoryor of the state of Florida, showing that the authorities of the latter exercised any of the powers of government north of the Watson line prior to the said settlement of the boundary between the twostates.

The defendant, to maintain the issue on his part, gave in evidence, first, a certified copy of a patent from the United States to the state of Florida, bearing dateJuly6,1857,issuedunderandinpursuanceoftheactapprovedSeptember28,

1850, known as the act for granting to certain states the 'swamp and overflowed lands' therein; by which patent there was granted to said state, as swamp and overflowedlands,certaindesignatedfractionalsectionsofland,amongothers'thewholeoffractionalsection29,'intownship3north,range9east;whichfractional sectionwasprovedtobeboundedonthenorthbyMcNeil'sline,andtoincludethe land in controversy. The defendant also produced in evidence a certificateofsale issuedbytheregisterofpubliclandsforthestateofFloridatooneMcCallandone Striplingforsaidfractionalsection29,andotherlandnamedinsaidpatent,which certificate bore date September 2, 1857, and acknowledged the receipt of $100 in cash, and of certain bonds for the remainder of the purchase money of saidlands,as provided by the land laws of Florida. Thedefendantfurther gave in evidence a deed from McCall and Stripling to himself,bearing date November 12,1858,conveying to him all the lands included in said certificate of sale,with a covenant thattheywerefreefromincumbrances;alsoadeedofgrantandconveyanceofthe same lands to the defendant from the trustees of the internal improvement fund of the state of Florida,--the proper authority for that purpose,--which lastdeed boredate September12,1874. The defendant,being sworn as a witness,testified that McCallandStriplingpaidallthepurchasemoneyforthelandstothestate;butthatthecertificatewaslost,andhe(thedefendant)afterwardsmadeproofofit,andhad thetrusteesoftheimprovementfundmakehimadeed;butthattheoriginalreceipt had since been found. He also testified that he had lived near the Georgialinefor over40years,andneverheardoftheWatsonlineuntilabout10or12yearsago.

He worked the public roads up to the McNeil line, and the Georgians worked their roads down to the McNeil line, and no further;thatthe McNeil line wasunderstoodby citizens living near the line in both states to be the boundaryline between thetwostates.

The defendant also gave in evidence the testimony of one Lanier, county surveyor of Madison county,Florida,who testified thathe had surveyedthelands in controversy,and gave it as his opinion that the plats of land annexed to the plaintiffs grants did not cover the said land, not having marks thereon for ponds, swamps, and streams which he found on the premises;that the Watsonlineattheplace in controversy runs through alargeswamp not shown in said plats; that, until the establishment of the Orr and Whitner line, the McNeil line was always considered as the boundaryline betweenGeorgia and Florida; that he had frequently surveyed on the Georgia line, and always surveyed to the McNeil line; that he never heard ofthe Watson line until the controversy that led to this suit.

The court charged the jury that if they believed from the evidence that the state of Georgia, anterior to the year 1842, considered the land in controversy within her territorial limits, and incorporated within one of her counties, over which the authorities of said state exercised the usual powers of government; and that in 1842 the governor of Georgia granted the identical lands in controversy to James Groover; and that said James Groover conveyed the same lands to Thomas

A. Groover in 1855; and that said Thomas A. Groover conveyed the same lands to Charles A. Groover in 1860; and that said Charles A. Groover was dead, and that the plaintiffs were his heirs,--then they must find for the plaintiffs; but that if the evidence failed to induce the jury to believe that the lands sued for were the same as those described in the said grants and conveyances, or that the Georgia grants included the lands to the Watson line, they must find for the defendant. Under this charge the jury found for the plaintiffs, thus establishing the fact that Georgia, anterior to 1842, did claim jurisdiction to the Watson line, and that the lands in controversy adjoining that line were included in the grant of Georgia to James Groover in1842.

The supremecourt of Florida sustained the charge of the court below, itbeing in accordance with its own opinion givenwhenthe case was firstbefore it, as reported in 19 Fla. 64. The positionassumedis that grantsin a disputed territory, by a government exercising therein sovereign jurisdictionde [8 S.Ct. 5] facto, are valid and to be sustained,notwithstanding that, by a subsequentsettlement of boundaries, the disputed territory is conceded to the other contesting sovereign. Georgia, undoubtedly, at the time of the grant to James Groover, exercised the powers of government de facto over the territory in which the land in controversy was situated; and it is assumed by the supreme court of Florida that the boundary line subsequently agreed upon, by which said land was conceded to lie in the state of Florida, was a mere arbitrary line, adopted by way of compromise, and was never acknowledged to be the true legal line establishedby previous treaties and laws.The argument is that, whatevermay be the law with regard to grants made by a government clearly beyond its lawful boundaries and jurisdiction, it is certain that grants made within its jurisdiction, being lawful when made, are not invalidated by a subsequent cession of the territoryto another sovereign;because, in such case, the rights of sovereignty only, and not those of private property, are changed. It is then assumed that, in cases of disputed boundary, where a line is finally fixed by compromise, the portions of territory previouslypossessedby either of the contracting parties, and concededby the adopted line to the other, are to be regarded and treated as ceded territory, and not as territory that always really belonged to the sovereign whogets it by the compromise. The supreme court of

Florida, speaking of the decision of the lower court, (which it affirmed,) says:

'What they did decide was that grants by a government de facto of parts of a disputed territory in its possession are valid against the state which had the right, (Dela Croixv.Chamberlain, 12 Wheat. 600;) and that, when a territory is acquired by treaty, cession, or conquest, the rights of the inhabitants to property are respected and sacred. Rhode Island v.Massachusetts, 12 Pet. 657, 749, 4How.

591, 639; U. S.V.

Itis no doubt the received doctrine that in cases of ceded or conquered territory the rights of private property in lands are respected. Grants made by the former government, being rightful when made, are not usually disturbed.

Allegiance is transferred from one government to the other without any subversion of property. This doctrine has been laid down very broadly on several occasions by this court,--particularly in cases arising upon grants of land made by the Spanishand other governments in Louisiana and Florida before those countries were ceded to the United States.Itis true that the property rights of the people, in those cases, were protected by stipulations in the treaties of cession, as is usual in such treaties; but the court took broaderground,and held, as a general principal of international law, that a mere cession of territory only operates upon the sovereignty and jurisdiction, including the right to the public domain, and not upon the private property of individuals which had been segregated from the public domain before the cession. This principle is asserted in the cases ofUS.v.Arredondo,6 Pet. 691;US.v.Percheman,7 Pet. 51, 86-89;Delassusv.US.,9 Pet. 117;Strotherv.

Lucas,12 Pet. 428;[8S.Ct. 6]Doev.Eslava,9 How. 421;Jonesv.McMasters,20 How. 17; andLeitensdorferv.Webb,Id. 176. InUS.v.Percheman,Chief Justice MARSHALL said:'Itmay not be unworthyof remark that it is very unusual, even in cases of conquest, for the conqueror to do more than to displace the sovereign, and assume dominion over the country. The modem usage of nations, which has become law, would beviolated,that sense of justice and of right which is acknowledged and felt by the whole civilized world would be outraged, if private property should be generally confiscated, and private rights annulled. The people change their allegiance, their relation to their ancient sovereignis dissolved, but their relations to each other, and their rights of property, remain undisturbed. If this be the modem rule even in cases of conquest, who can doubt its application to the case of an amicable cession of territory? Had Florida changed its sovereignby an act containing no stipulation respecting the property of individuals, the right of property in all those who became subjects or citizens of the new government would have been unaffected by the change.' 7Pet. 86, 87.

But while this is the acknowledged rule in cases of ceded, and even conquered, territory, with regard to titles acquired from former sovereign who had undoubted right to create them, it does not apply (as well shall see) to cases of disputed boundary in relation to titles created by a sovereign in possession, but not rightfully so. In the latter case, when the true boundaryis ascertained,or adjusted by agreement, grants made by either sovereign beyond the limits of his rightful territory,whether he had possession or not, (unless confirmed by proper stipulations,) fail for want of title in the grantor. This is thegeneral rule.

Circumstances may possibly exist which woule make valid the grants of a governmentde facto;as, for example, where they contraveneno other rights. Grants of public domain made by Napoleon, as sovereignde factoof France, may have had a more solid basis of legality than similar grants made by him assovereignde factoof a Prussian province, derogatory to the rights of the government and king ofPrussia.

As the case before us depends upon a disputedboundarybetween two states, it cannot be properly understood or determined without adverting to the historical facts connected with that boundary. Some of these are referred to by the supreme court of Florida in its opinion, but several others are necessaryto be stated in orderto show the circumstances under which the boundary between Georgia and Florida was finally settled, and to determine whether the assumption of the court, that the territory containing the landin controversywas cededby Georgia to Florida,is well founded. The case, if it can beavoided,ought not to be decided upon a narrow selection of facts which might determine the question one way, before one jury, to day, and another way, before another jury, to-morrow; but upon a broad view of all the historical events which relate to this boundaryline.Weshallproceed, therefore, to review these events as far as they have come to our knowledge from publicdocuments.

In early colonial times there were always mutual complaintsof encroachment between the British provinces and the Spanish province of Florida, sometimes resulting in military conflicts; and no boundarywas ever settled between them. The difficulty was finally removed by the treaty of 1763, by which Florida was ceded to Great Britain. See Treaty, arts. 7, 20, 1 Chalm. 473,479.

Soon after this event, on the seventh of October, 1763, King George III., by proclamation,erectedgovernmentsinthenewly-acquiredterritoriesofCanadaand the Floridas, and established the boundaries of the latter as follows, to-wit: 'The government of East Florida, bounded to the westward by the Gulf of Mexico and the Appalachicola river;to the northward, by a line drawn from that part of said riverwheretheChattahoocheeandFlintriversmeettothesourceoftheSt.Mary's

river,and by the course of the said river to the Atlantic ocean.' West Florida was bounded[8 S.Ct. 7]north by the parallel of 31north latitude, from the Mississippi to the Chattahoochee river. See Proclamation in Amer. St. P.; 1 Pub. Laws, 36; and

1 Bioren, Laws U.S. 443. On January 20, 1764, the province of Georgia was limited to the north of the line thus prescribed for Florida. 1 Bioren, Laws,448,

449. The above-defined line, from the junction of the Chattahoochee and Flint rivers to the source of the St. Mary's has from 1763 to the present time been the recognized boundary line between Georgia and Florida. The land in controversy is situated about midway between itsextremities.

By the definitive treaty of peace with Great Britain in 1783, the line above described was adopted as the southern boundary line of the United States, and the Floridas were at the same time, by another treaty, ceded to Spain. See Treaties & Conventions, 315, 2 Chalm. 232, Treaties of 1783. By the treaty of October 27, 1795, between the United States and Spain, this boundary was confirmed,and itwas provided that a commissionerand a surveyor should be appointedby each party to meet at Natchez within six months from the ratification of the treaty, and proceed to run and mark the boundary line, and make plats, and keep journals of their proceedings, which should be consideredas part of the treaty.Our governmentappointedAndrew Ellicott, Esq., as commissioner,in May, 1796, and a surveyor to assist him, and they proceeded to Natchez, and, after much procrastination on the part of the Spanish authorities, a Capt. Stephen Minor was appointed on the part of Spain; and the joint commissioners of the two countries, in 1798 and 1799, ran and marked the boundary line from the Mississippi to the Chattachoochee, and determined the geographical position of the junction of the Chattahoochee and Flint rivers to be in north latitude 30 deg. 42 min. 42.8 sec., and west longitude 85 deg. 53 min. 15 sec. The hostility of the Creek Indians prevented them from running the line east of the Chatthoochee;but they sailed around the coast of Florida, and up the river of St. Mary's, and fixed upon the eastern terminus of the straight line prescribed in the treaties, at the head of the St. Mary's, where it issues from the Okefenoke swamp, and erected a mound of earth to designate the spot. This was in February, 1800 The mound is still in existence, and is called 'Ellicott's Mound,' and appears on all the principal maps of that part of the country. The commissioners, supposing that the true head of the river was located in the swamp, agreed that it should be considered as distant two miles north-east from the mound, and that in running the boundary line from the Chattachoochee it should be run to the north of the mound, and not nearer to it than one mile. The point fixed upon as the head of the St. Mary's was determined by observations to be in north latitude 30 deg. 21 min. 39 1/2 sec., west longitude 82 deg. 15 min. 42 sec. The distance by straight line or great circle, from the junction of the Chattahoocheeand

Flint rivers to the head of the St. Mary's, was calculated at 155.2 miles; and the initial course for running the line from each terminus was given, with the proper corrections to be made at intervals in order to follow the great circle. The commissioners signed a joint report of their proceedings, and transmitted the same to their respective governments. All these particulars are set forth in Mr. Ellicott's journal, and are matters of public history. See Ellicott's Journal, Phila.1803.

We think that the decision of the supreme court of Florida is erroneous in deciding against the title of the plaintiff in error. That title is claimed under a grant from the United States of land acquired by treaty with Spain, identifiedas such by the former treaty of limits, and the proceedings of the commissionersappointed to carry out that treaty. The decision of the supreme court of Florida, in effect, is, either that the land was not embraced in the treaty of cession, or, if it was, that the possession of Georgia gave a superior right. We think it clear that the land was embraced in the treaty, and that the possession of Georgia did not give a superior right. The judgment is therefore reversed, and the cause remanded,with instructions to proceed according tolaw,in conformity with thisopinion.

Judgment reversed.

1.Who is the Plaintiff in the Supreme Court Case?

a)Whitner

b)Groover

c)Watson

d)Coffee

2.Who is the Defendant in the Supreme Court Case?

a)Watson

b)Whitner

c)Groover

d)Coffee

3.Who granted the 97 acres to Groover (and when)?

a)Orr and Whitner granted the land to Groover in 1850

b)Florida granted the land to Groover in 1857

c)Georgia granted the land to Groover in 1842

d)Georgia allowed Watson to settle the land and he gave it to Groover

4.Who granted the 97 acres to Coffee (and when)?

a)Orr and Whitner granted the land to Coffee in 1850

b)Florida granted the land to McCall and McCall gave it to Coffee in 1857

c)Georgia granted the land to Coffee in 1842

d)Georgia allowed Watson to settle the land and he gave it to Coffee

5.On which line did Georgia think its southern border was located?

a)Orr and Whitner line

b)Watson line

c)McNeil line

d)Ellicott's Mound

6.On which line did Florida think its northern border was located?

a)Ellicott's Mound

b)Orr and Whitner line

c)Watson line

d)McNeil line

7.A patent is a form of deed used when a governmental agency transfers property.

a)True

b)False

8.When Coffee kicked Groover off the land and Groover sued in the Florida Courts to get the land back, on what basis did the Supreme Court of the State of Florida rule in favor of Groover?

a)There was a patent from the State of Georgia granting the land to Groover

b)Grants in a disputed territory by a government exercising sovereign jurisdiction are valid, even though an agreement was reached later that changed the boundary.

c)The land was part of the grant pursuant to the treaty between the U.S. and Spain, and the possession of Georgia was a superior right.

d)All of the above

9.On what basis did the Supreme Court of the U.S. reverse?

a)In cases of disputed boundary when the actual boundary is determined, grants made by a sovereign beyond its rightful limits are void for lack of actual title

b)The land was part of the grant pursuant to the treaty between the U.S. and Spain, and the possession of Georgia was NOT a superior right.

c)A and B above

d)None of the above

10.Ellicott's Mound is located in the Okefonoke Swamp and cannot be easily accessed on foot.

a)True

b)False