Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
UNITED STATES v. HARRISON, 1852 — 154 U.S. 531 · caselaw · US
General
UNITED STATES v. HARRISON
154 U.S. 53138 L. Ed. 1087·Supreme Court of the United States·1852
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
UNITED STATES v. HARRISON.
APPEAL PROM THE DISTRICT COURT DP THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OP LOUISIANA.
No. 126.
Submitted April 21, 1852.
Decided April 23, 1852.
The evidence and principles decided in this case are the same in substance with those in United States v. Philadelphia, 11 How. 609.
The ease is stated in the opinion.
[MAJORITY — Mr. Chief Justice Taney]
Mr. Chief Justice Taney
delivered the opinion of the court. The appellees in this case claim title to the land in question under certain instruments of writing executed by the Baron Carondelet in favor of the Baron Bastrop in 1796 and 1797, which are fully set out in' the case of The United States v. The Cities of Philadelphia and New Orleans, reported in 11 How. 609. It was decided, in that case that these instruments of writing did not convey to the Baron Bastrop a title to the lands therein described. The decree in this case in favor of the appellees must therefore be reversed and a mandate issued directing the District Court to enter a decree in favor of the' United States and dismiss the petition.
Mr. Attorney General for appellant.
No appearance for appellees.
This case not to be reported, the evidence and principles decided being the same in substance with the case referred to in 11 Howard’s Beports. Reversed.