Wilcox v. Jackson
38 U.S. 498, 13 Pet. 498, 10 L. Ed. 264 (1839)
Rule of Law:
The United States holds exclusive Constitutional authority over the disposition of public lands, meaning a state law cannot validate a land claim against the federal government when the land has been appropriated for public use and no federal patent has been issued.
Facts:
- In 1804, the United States established Fort Dearborn as a military post on the land in question, occupying it intermittently with troops until the time of the suit.
- Beaubean purchased a house on the tract in 1817 and cultivated a garden and field on the property for several years.
- In 1824, at the request of the Secretary of War, the Commissioner of the General Land Office formally reserved the section of land for military purposes.
- Beaubean attempted to claim the land under federal pre-emption laws in 1831, 1832, and 1834, but his applications were rejected because the land was reserved.
- In 1835, the local land office in Chicago allowed Beaubean's claim; he paid the purchase money and received a Register's certificate.
- Wilcox, the defendant, was the commanding officer of the U.S. Army at the post and occupied the land solely in his official capacity for the United States.
- Beaubean conveyed his interest to the plaintiff (Jackson/Lessor), who sought to evict Wilcox from the premises.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff (Beaubean's lessee) filed an action of ejectment against Wilcox in the Illinois state trial court.
- The Illinois state trial court entered judgment in favor of the plaintiff.
- Wilcox appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court of the State of Illinois.
- The Supreme Court of Illinois affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding the certificate was sufficient title to recover possession.
- Wilcox filed a writ of error with 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 settler acquire valid legal title to public land via a state-recognized land office certificate when that land was previously reserved for a federal military post?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Barbour
No, a settler cannot acquire title to land that has been appropriated for public use, nor can state law override federal title requirements. The Court reasoned that the pre-emption laws explicitly prohibited the entry or sale of lands reserved for the use of the United States. Fort Dearborn had been legally appropriated by the War Department, acting as the agent of the President, effectively severing it from the mass of public lands available for sale. Consequently, the local land office lacked jurisdiction to sell the land, rendering their issuance of the certificate void, not merely voidable. Furthermore, under the Property Clause of the Constitution, Congress has exclusive power to dispose of public land. Although Illinois law declared a land certificate to be evidence of title, this state law cannot operate against the United States. Until a patent issues, the fee simple title remains with the federal government, and a state cannot legislate that title away against the will of Congress.
Analysis:
This decision is a cornerstone of public land law and federal supremacy. It clarifies that acts of department heads (like the Secretary of War) are legally presumed to be acts of the President, establishing a broad scope for executive authority in administrative matters. Legally, it draws a sharp line between state and federal power: while states control property transfer between private citizens, they cannot dictate the terms under which the federal government divests itself of public domain. The case also establishes the 'void vs. voidable' distinction regarding administrative agency actions; if an agency acts regarding subject matter strictly prohibited to it (like selling reserved land), the action is a legal nullity.
