United States v. Percheman
7 Pet. 51, 8 L. Ed. 604, 32 U.S. 51 (1833)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the law of nations, a change in sovereignty over a territory does not divest the private property rights of its inhabitants. A treaty ceding territory can be self-executing, meaning its provisions protecting property rights are immediately enforceable in U.S. courts without requiring subsequent implementing legislation by Congress.
Facts:
- In December 1815, Juan Percheman, a Spanish military officer, petitioned the Spanish governor of East Florida for a grant of 2,000 acres of land.
- Percheman's petition was based on his military services and referenced a Spanish royal order of March 29, 1815, which authorized land bounties for military personnel.
- On December 12, 1815, the Spanish governor granted Percheman the 2,000 acres in 'absolute property,' decreeing that a certified copy of the order would serve as a formal title.
- Percheman subsequently obtained an order for a survey, which was completed and certified.
- In 1819, Spain signed a treaty ceding the territory of East and West Florida to the United States.
- Article 8 of the treaty contained a provision addressing the status of land grants made by Spanish authorities prior to January 24, 1818.
- At a later date, Percheman sold and conveyed his right to the tract of land to Francis P. Sanchez.
Procedural Posture:
- Juan Percheman filed a petition in the superior court for the district of East Florida to have his title to 2,000 acres of land confirmed under U.S. law.
- The United States attorney answered, arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction because a board of commissioners (the register and receiver) had already 'finally acted upon' and rejected the claim when it was presented by Percheman's assignee, Francis P. Sanchez.
- At trial, the U.S. attorney objected to the admission of a certified copy of the Spanish grant as evidence, which the court overruled.
- The superior court for the district of East Florida entered a decree confirming Percheman’s title as valid.
- The United States appealed the superior court's decree 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 the 1819 treaty between the United States and Spain, which cedes Florida, operate as a present confirmation of valid Spanish land grants, thereby protecting private property rights without the need for subsequent legislative action?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr Chief Justice Marshall
Yes, the treaty itself ratifies and confirms valid pre-existing land grants, consistent with the law of nations which protects private property rights when sovereignty changes. The modern usage of nations, which has become law, establishes that a change of sovereignty does not annul private rights of property. A cession of territory is a cession of sovereignty, not of the private property of its inhabitants; the ceding sovereign can only grant that which it owns. The Court re-examined Article 8 of the treaty, which in English states that grants 'shall be ratified and confirmed.' While this language was previously interpreted in Foster v. Elam as executory (requiring future legislative action), the Court now considered the Spanish version of the treaty, which translates to the grants 'shall remain ratified and confirmed.' Finding both texts to be originals, the Court held that the construction that harmonizes them and conforms to the law of nations should prevail. The Spanish text clarifies the intent that the treaty is self-executing and acknowledges existing, valid titles, making them legally protected upon ratification of the treaty without needing an act of Congress. Therefore, Percheman's title, if valid under Spain, was protected by the treaty itself.
Analysis:
This decision is a landmark in treaty law, effectively reversing the Court's earlier holding in Foster v. Elam. It establishes the principle that a treaty can be self-executing, meaning it has the force of domestic law upon ratification without requiring implementing legislation from Congress. By looking to the Spanish-language version of the treaty to clarify intent, the Court prioritized a construction that upholds private property rights and aligns with the law of nations. This ruling strengthened protections for property owners in newly acquired territories and provided a crucial precedent for interpreting the domestic legal effect of international treaties.
