Johnson v. M'Intosh

Supreme Court of the United States · 1823 · Property

Propertytitleconquestdiscovery doctrineNative American land rightsdiscovery doctrineIndian right of occupancyexclusive right of preemption

Facts

The plaintiffs relied on two grants purporting to have been made by chiefs of the Illinois and Piankeshaw nations in 1773 and 1775. The agreed facts showed that the chiefs had whatever authority their own people could give and that the tribes were in rightful possession of the land they sold. The dispute therefore centered not on tribal possession, but on whether Indians had power to convey a title that private individuals could receive and enforce in United States courts. The land lay within territory claimed under the sovereign title that had passed from Great Britain to the United States.

Issue

Can a title to land in the United States, derived directly from Indian tribes by private purchase, be recognized and sustained in the courts of the United States? More specifically, did the tribes have power to transfer an enforceable absolute title to private individuals rather than only a right of occupancy subject to the sovereign's exclusive right of acquisition?

Rule

Under the doctrine adopted by European powers and accepted by the United States, discovery gave the discovering sovereign ultimate title to the soil and the exclusive right to acquire the land from the Indians, either by purchase or conquest. Indian tribes retained a legal right of occupancy and possession, but not the power to convey an absolute title to private individuals that United States courts will recognize against the sovereign title.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In 1792, Ethan Mercer obtained a deed for 4,000 acres near present-day Vincennes, Indiana, directly from chiefs of a tribe then in peaceful possession of the land. In 1810, the United States later extinguished the tribe’s occupancy and issued a federal patent for the same tract to Nora Bell. Ethan sues Nora in federal court to quiet title.

Who has the better title recognized in a United States court?

Explanation. The majority rule is that discovery vested ultimate title in the sovereign, together with the exclusive right to acquire the land from the Indians by purchase or conquest. Tribes retained a legal right of occupancy, but not a power to convey absolute title enforceable in United States courts against the sovereign or its grantee. Ethan’s deed from the tribe alone cannot defeat Nora’s later federal patent.