Pollard's Lessee v. HAGAN
44 U.S. 212, 11 L. Ed. 565, 3 How. 212 (1845)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the equal footing doctrine, new states, upon their admission to the Union, acquire sovereign title to the soils under their navigable waters up to the ordinary high water mark. The United States holds these lands in trust for the future states and cannot, after statehood, grant them to private parties.
Facts:
- The land in question is located in the city of Mobile, Alabama.
- At the time Alabama was admitted into the Union in 1819, the premises were covered by the waters of the Mobile River at common high tide.
- The United States acquired the territory that became Alabama through cessions from Georgia and the Louisiana Purchase.
- The cessions stipulated that new states created from the territory would be admitted to the Union on an 'equal footing' with the original states.
- In 1836, Congress passed an act purporting to grant the land in question to the heirs of William Pollard.
- The United States subsequently issued a patent for the land to Pollard's heirs.
- The land was later filled in, either by human labor or natural alluvion, and was no longer covered by water.
Procedural Posture:
- The heirs of William Pollard brought an action of ejectment against Hagan and others in the Circuit Court of Mobile County, Alabama (a state trial court).
- At trial, the court instructed the jury that if the premises were below the usual high water-mark at the time Alabama was admitted to the Union, the federal patent held by the plaintiffs was invalid.
- The jury found a verdict in favor of the defendants, Hagan et al., and the trial court entered judgment for them.
- The plaintiffs (Pollard's heirs) appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court of Alabama.
- The Supreme Court of Alabama affirmed the judgment of the trial court.
- The plaintiffs (now petitioners) sought and were granted a writ of error from the Supreme Court of the United States to review the decision of the Supreme Court of Alabama.
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 grant of land by the United States, which was below the ordinary high water mark of navigable waters at the time a state was admitted to the Union, convey valid title to the grantee?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice McKinley
No. A grant by the United States of land that was beneath navigable waters at the time of statehood is invalid because title to such land automatically passes to the state upon its admission to the Union. The original thirteen states retained sovereignty over the lands under their navigable waters upon independence. The United States held the territory of Alabama in trust for the future state, and under the constitutional principle of equal footing, Alabama must be admitted with the same rights of sovereignty as the original states. This includes ownership of the soil beneath its navigable waters. When Alabama became a state, it succeeded to these sovereign rights, and the United States' trust terminated, leaving it with no title to grant. The federal government's power over 'public lands' does not extend to these submerged lands, which are held by the state for the public trust.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Catron
Yes. The United States retained the right to grant the land, and the title conveyed to Pollard's heirs should be considered valid. This Court has twice previously sanctioned this very title. The majority's decision relies on a novel theory of state sovereignty that unsettles long-established property rights and contradicts the fact that Alabama, as a condition of statehood, explicitly disclaimed all right and title to unappropriated lands within its territory. These lands were unappropriated at the time and thus remained at the sole disposition of the United States. The decision creates legal chaos by invalidating countless federal grants for valuable reclaimed land in cities like Mobile and New Orleans, effectively stripping owners of their property without a clear alternative for establishing title.
Analysis:
This landmark case establishes the equal footing doctrine as the basis for state ownership of lands submerged beneath navigable waters. It confirms that the federal government's title to such lands is held in trust for future states and is extinguished upon statehood. The decision solidifies the public trust doctrine, affirming that states hold these lands for public use (e.g., navigation, commerce, and fishing) rather than for private sale. This ruling has had a profound and lasting impact on property rights, environmental law, and the allocation of natural resources (such as oil and gas) in coastal and riparian areas across the United States.
