Johnson v. M'Intosh
21 U.S. 543 (8 Wheat. 543) (1823)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the 'discovery doctrine,' private citizens cannot purchase land directly from Native American tribes, as the discovering sovereign nation (and its successor, the United States) gained ultimate title to the land, subject only to the tribes' 'right of occupancy,' which only the sovereign can extinguish.
Facts:
- In 1773 and 1775, chiefs of the Illinois and Piankeshaw nations, who were in rightful possession of their tribal lands, sold several parcels of that land to private individuals.
- The plaintiffs, Johnson's lessees, claimed ownership of the land through this chain of title originating from the tribal chiefs.
- Following the Revolutionary War, the United States acquired sovereignty over this territory from Great Britain.
- Years after the sale from the tribes to the private individuals, the United States government granted a patent for the same parcel of land to William M'Intosh, the defendant.
- The Piankeshaw tribe later ceded the land to the United States by treaty, without any reservation for the land previously sold to the private individuals.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiffs, as lessees of Thomas Johnson, brought an action of ejectment against William M'Intosh.
- The case was heard in the United States District Court for the District of Illinois.
- The parties agreed to a statement of facts and submitted the case to the court for a decision on the question of title.
- The District Court rendered judgment in favor of the defendant, M'Intosh, holding his title from the U.S. government was superior.
- The plaintiffs appealed the decision to the Supreme Court of the United States.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a title to land conveyed by Native American tribes to private individuals supersede a later title to the same land granted by the United States government?
Opinions:
Majority - Marshall, Ch. J.
No. A title to land derived from a direct purchase from Native American tribes cannot be recognized in the courts of the United States and is not valid against a subsequent grant from the United States government. The court's reasoning is rooted in the 'discovery doctrine,' a principle established among European nations to govern land acquisition in the Americas. This doctrine holds that the European nation that 'discovered' a territory acquired absolute title to the land, subject only to the Native Americans' right of occupancy. This discovery gave the sovereign the exclusive right to extinguish the Indian title, either by purchase or conquest. Consequently, the Native American tribes did not possess the power to transfer absolute title to private individuals. The United States, as the successor to Great Britain's sovereignty, inherited this exclusive right, and therefore, only a title derived from the U.S. government is valid within the American legal system.
Analysis:
This landmark decision established the 'discovery doctrine' as a foundational principle of American property and federal Indian law. It legally justified the dispossession of Native Americans by defining their land rights as a mere 'right of occupancy' rather than full ownership, thereby invalidating any land sales to private parties. The ruling centralized power in the federal government as the sole entity capable of acquiring land from tribes, profoundly shaping westward expansion and the legal and economic status of Native American nations for centuries.
