US SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
GARLAND V. WYNN, 61 U. S. 6 (1857)
Subscribe to Cases that cite 61 U. S. 6U.S. Supreme Court
Garland v. Wynn, 61 U.S. 20 How. 6 6 (1857)
Garland v. Wynn
61 U.S. (20 How.) 6
Syllabus
Where several parties set up conflicting claims to property, with which a special tribunal may deal, as between one party and the government, regardless of the rights of others, the latter may come into the ordinary courts of justice and litigate the conflicting claims.
Therefore, in a case where the register and receiver of public lands have been imposed upon by ex parte affidavits, and the patent has been obtained by one having no interest secured to him in virtue of the preemption laws, to the destruction of another's right who had a preference of entry which he preferred and exerted in due form, but which right was defeated by false swearing and fraudulent contrivance brought about by him to whom the patent was awarded in such a case, the jurisdiction of the courts of justice is not ousted by the regulations of the Commissioner of the General Land Office.
The controversy referred to the northeast quarter of section 18, in township 16 south, range 25 west of the fifth principal meridian, south of Red River, in the County of Lafayette.
The facts of the case are stated in the opinion of the Court.
The bill was filed by Wynn, who alleged that he would have got a patent but for Garland's proving a preemption right in the land, under the act of 1830, to exist in Hemphill. After various proceedings, the circuit court state court decreed against Wynn. The supreme court of the state reversed this decree, and ordered Garland to convey the land in question to Wynn, upon payment of two hundred dollars, with interest, or in case of neglect, that the decree should stand as a conveyance &c.
From this decree, Garland appealed to this Court.
The principal points of law involved in the argument were 1st, whether or not Wynn could interpose between the United chanrobles.com-red
States and the patentee, and 2d whether the decision of the officers of the land office was not conclusive upon all person except the United States, and upon them also until the patent was vacated by regular judicial authority.
