Johnson v.

Mcintosh
21 US 543 (1823)
Brief fact summary: A title to lands under grants to private individuals made by Indian tribes northwest of the River Ohio in
1773 and in 1775 cannot be recognized in the courts of U.S. Discovery of the original foundation of titles to land on the
American continent as between the different European nations by whom conquests and settlements were made here. The
exclusive right of the British government to the lands occupied by the Indians has passed to the U.S. Application of the
principle of the right of conquest to the case of the Indian savages. Nature of Indian title, as subordinate to the absolute
ultimate title of the government. Plaintiffs sought to have certain land grants purportedly made by Indian tribal chiefs
recognized by US govt.

Sypnosis of Rule of law: The title of land which has been discovered and conquered belongs entirely to the conquering nation,
subject only to the right of those natives present to occupy the land.

Facts: At issue were 2 purported grants of land by Indian tribes to private persons in 1773 & 1775. Lands constituted the
Illinois and Piankenshaw nations. In 1773, certain chiefs of the Illinois Indians duly executed and delivered, and for a good
and valuable consideration, grant to Murray and other merchants all those two several tracts of land situated within the limits
of Virginia. Then in 1775, Tabac and certain other Indians, all being chiefs of the Piankenshaws duly executed and delivered,
and for a good and valuable consideration, grant to Louis Vivlat and other persons or to George III, then King of Great Britain
and Ireland, all those two several tracts of land situated witihin the limits of Virginia and on both sides of Quabache or
Wabash. In 1776, Colony of Virginia threw off its dependence on the Crown and government of Great Britain and declared
itself an independent state. In 1783, State of Virginia authorized their delegates in the Congress of the U.S. to transfer to the
U.S. all right, title, and claim as well of soil as jurisdiction. In 1818, the U.S. sell, grant and convey to defendant, William
Mcintosh, all those several tracts of land by this patent, which are situated within the State of Illinois and are contained within
the lines of one of the two tracts granted to Louis Vivlat in 1775. Mcintosh entered upon these lands by virtue of his patent
and possessed thereof before the institution of this suit. Thomas Johnson, one of the grantees under the deed in 1775, seized
of all his undivided share in the 2 several tracts of land, having first duly made and published in his last will and testament to
his son, Joshua Johnson and his heirs, and his grandson, Thomas Graham, and his heirs. Joshua Johnson and Thomas Graham,
the devisees, entered into the 2 tracts of land by virtue of the will and seized it. Neither Murray nor any other grantees under
the deed of 1773, nor Vivlat nor any other of the grantees under the deed of 1775, nor any of them had actual possession by
virtue of those deeds described and purported to be granted, but were prevented by the war of the American Revolution.
They have repeatedly petitioned the Congress of the U.S. to acknowledge their title to those lands under the purchases and
deeds, but without success. Plaintiff sought to have the US gov’t recognize the plaintiff’s title to the lands which were alleged
to have passed under the grants.

Issue: May Indian tribes give a legally recognizable title in land to private persons, such that the title may be received by
private person and upheld against any claims by courts of the US.

Held: NO. Judgment of District Court of Illinois denying plaintiff’ s right to assert title of lands granted is affirmed. Rules of
property must be drawn from and decided by the nation in which the property, which is the subject matter of the lawsuit
lies. Due to historical precedents established by European discovery of North America, the rule was that among the nations
of Europe, title properly belonged to the nation which discovered the new land. Incident to the principle that “title belonged
to the nation which discovered the new land”, was the subsequent diminishment of the natives ability to dispose their land.
Their impairment of native sovereignty was subject to the recognition that “the natives could live on the land but they could
grant the land to a private one”. This was the case because the land itself was subject to the dominion and control of the
nation which discovered and conquered it. According to the treaty ending the revolutionary war, Great Britain relinquished
any claim to “proprietary and territorial rights of the U.S.”. Thus, the U.S. owned the entirety of the lands which were situated
within the boundaries of the states existing at that time. It follows that those natives who lived within such boundaries did
not own title to the land. Therefore, the plaintiff does not have a title recognizable by U.S.