Groover et al. v. Coffee-Opinion of Court.

Florida," (as expressed by the Legislature of this State in the act of 22d December, 1859, and the resolutions of February 8, 1861,) and which line is spoken of in the act of Congress of April 9, 1872, as “the line dividing the States, ** lately established as the true boundary," it was “a case of disputed boundary." It is in evidence that in July, 1820, the Surveyor-General of Georgia caused the land in question to be surveyed and platted as situated in the 15th district in the county of Irwin, State of Georgia; and that it was conveyed to James Groover by the Governor of Georgia January 1, 1842, as land belonging to that State, "in pursuance of the act of the General Assembly passed 23d December, 1822, to dispose of the fractional lots of land in the territory lately acquired from the Creek and Cherokee Indians."

By the convention of 24th April, 1802, between the United States and Georgia, all the public lands south of the southern boundaries of Tennessee, North Carolina and South Carolina and east of the Chattahoochee river, &c., and not within the proper boundaries of any other State, were ceded to the State of Georgia. (1 Laws of U. S., 488, 490.) By the same convention the United States agreed to extinguish all the Indian titles to lands in Georgia for her benefit. This was accomplished by treaty with the Creeks June 16, 1802, and November 14, 1805. I Laws U. S., 370, 373.

The State of Georgia, as appears, considered and treated the land in dispute as part of the Indian lands within her borders, and surveyed and sold it to James Groover.

The "Watson Line" is recognized by the act of Congress of April 9, 1872, by confirming to the grantees of Georgia all the interest of the United States in any lands north of that line. We do not mean that the Watson line was recognized as a State boundary, but the United

Groover et al. v. Coffee-Opinion of Court.

States thereby recognized the grants made by the State of Georgia as valid against any claim of the United States. Nor do we intend to say that this act of Congress gave any right to plaintiffs in the disputed tract, if the United States had before conveyed it to the State of Florida by the patent of July 6, 1857. Nor on the other hand do we determine that the United States had title as against Georgia to the lands north of the Watson line.

It is not demonstrated by the proofs in this record or from the action of the United States Government or the governments of Georgia and Florida, that the line adopted by these States in 1859 and 1861 to be permanent boundary between them, was the true line prior to that agreement. It was "adopted" and "recognized" as the settlement of a disputed boundary. The act of Congress of 1872 recognized and acted upon this settlement and mentions it as "lately established as the true boundary," thereby assuming that this "true boundary" had not been before established.

The United States Supreme Court in Poole vs. Fleeger, 11 Peters, 185, in reference to a controversy between grantees of Kentucky and Tennessee, says: "Although in the compact Walker's line is agreed to be in the future the boundary between the two States, it is not so established as having been for the past the true rightful boundary.' The court further remarks (p. 209): "It cannot be doubted that it is a part of the general right of sovereignty, belonging to independent nations, to establish and fix the disputed boundaries between their respective territories, and the boundaries so established and fixed by compact between nations become conclusive upon all subjects and citizens thereof, and bind their rights, and are to be treated, to all intents and purposes, as the true and real boundaries. * * It is a right equally belonging to the States of this Union,"

Groover et al. v. Coffee-Opinion of Court.

Congress consenting. In that case it was held that the grants made by North Carolina and Tennessee were not rightfully made, because they were originally clearly beyond their territorial boundary, and that the grant under which the claimants claimed was rightfully made, because it was within the well known territorial boundary of Virginia. In that case there was no ground of cavil as to where the original boundaries had been located.

The same court in The State of Rhode Island vs. The State of Mass., 12 Pet., 657, 748, speaking of the principle announced in Poole vs. Fleeger that an agreement between States, consented to by Congress, bound the citizens of each State, says: "There are two principles of the law of nations which would protect them in their property: I. That grants by a government de facto of parts of a disputed territory in its possession are valid against the State which had the right. 2. That when a territory is acquired by treaty, cession or conquest, the rights of the inhabitants to property are respected and sacred. 8 Wheat., 589; 12 Wheat., 535; 6 Pet., 712; 7 Pet., 867; 8 Pet., 445; 9 Fet., 133; 10 Pet., 330, 712."

In the controversy between the States of Rhode Island and Massachusetts, involving their disputed boundary, the matter was again before the Supreme Court in 4 How., 591, 639, and at the close of the opinion of the court this language is used: "For the security of rights, whether of States or individuals, long possession under a chain of title is protected. And there is no controversy in which this great principle may be invoked with greater justice and propriety than in a case of disputed boundary."

The principles cited from the foregoing cases cannot be questioned. They are clearly applicable to the case under consideration.

It is considered established by the record here, in con

Groover et al. v. Coffee-Opinion of Court.

nection with the legislation of Georgia and Florida on the subject of the boundary, that Georgia claimed and exercised dominion of the territory down to the Watson line; that she caused it to be surveyed and mapped in 1820, and the surveys and maps to be recorded in her public records; that the territory was incorporated in the original county of Irwin; that acting under the authority of the Legislature the Governor issued patents to James Groover covering this land, and the same, the plat and certificate of survey, were recorded in the records of Irwin county; that from the date of this patent, January 1, 1842, the patentee and his grantees have, under conveyances recorded in Irwin county and its sub-divisions, been in constant possession by actual occupancy and cultivation down to 1876, when the defendant took possession under some proceeding against Mrs. Groover, and has held possession since that

year.

A definitely marked boundary line between the Spanish province of Florida and the United States, or between Georgia and Florida, had never been made and recognized by the governments claiming dominion on either side until the boundary line was run by Orr and Whitner and recognized by the two States in 1859 and by Congress in 1872, whereby further controversy as to the location of the line was closed. Up to that time it was in controversy and doubt.

Congress in 1872 recognized and confirmed the titles granted by Georgia down to the Watson line as against the United States. By numerous decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States it appears that the law of nations has been recognized and adopted as applicable to the States of the Union; that grants by the nationality or the State actually exercising dominion over territory along the line of a disputed boundary, such State having power to

Groover et al. v. Coffee-Opinion of Court.

grant lands within its border, as to the "rights of the inhabitants to property, are respected and sacred."

The claim on the part of the defendant is based upon a deed of the Trustees of the Internal Improvement Fund conveying to him in 1874 fractional section twenty-nine, which, according to a survey and plat in evidence, covers the land in question. This survey and plat is supposed to accord with the surveys made by the United States Surveyors of the public lands in Florida, and this land is described in the deed of the Trustees and the patent to the State as swamp and overflowed land granted by Congress by act of September 28, 1850, to the State, and by the State placed in the hands of the Trustees of the Internal Improvement Fund by the act of January 6, 1855, known as the Internal Improvement Act.

The court in charging the jury gave this instruction: "That the State of Georgia had no power to grant a valid title to the land in controversy," referring to the grant of Georgia to James Groover January 1, 1842. This instruction, in connection with what followed it, was decisive of the case before the jury. It determined, as a matter of law and fact, that the State of Georgia had no power to confer the title, and that the boundary line between Georgia and Florida was, at the date of the grant, considered to lie north of this land, and that therefore it was not included within the then boundaries of the State of Georgia.

From what has preceded we think this charge cannot be sustained. Not only was there no evidence that at the date of that grant the known and recognized boundary line was north of this land, but the State of Georgia had exercised dominion and administered its government and laws upon the territory, granting lands, making surveys and records, and recording deeds of conveyance of these lands in Irwin