them as there be; if none such, then to the great grandfather Сн. 223. &c. &c. in many minute provisions among relations too remote Art. 16. often to be heirs. Thus we see the same principle of equality in our States, but vast variety in minute detail. ART. 16. Louisana. the act was 1. When Louisiana was a territory, she adopted the late A. D. 1808, French Civil Code, with such variations as her situation re- March 31, quired. This was published in one volume, 491 pages. in passed by English in one page, and in French in the next, called a Di- the House of gest of the Civil Law, divided into books; books into titles; Representatives, Countitles into chapters; chapters into sections; and the sub- cil, and Govject matter of each is expressed ;-but each title is divided ernor. in articles that follow, 1 to 50, 1 to 100, &c. without regarding the chapters or sections, hence may well enough be cited by book, title, and article, and the subdivision of the article. 1, art 17, page 143. See much 44, a. 4, s. 1 to 25; as to pledges, Ch. 142, a. 9 to 17; as to le1 to gacies, Ch. rules 147, s. 9 to 21; as to bills, bail 2. "In matters of legal successions no difference of sex, Book 3, title and no right of primogeniture are known, but they are regulated by the most perfect equality ;" and by other articles as to the ascending, descending, and collateral lines or relations. Art. 19. "Representation takes place ad infinitum in the direct descending line." Art. 21. "In the collateral line, a representative is admitted only in favour of the nephews and more law as nieces coming to the succession of their uncles and aunts, in to this State, place of their fathers or mothers before deceased." Art. 22, as to liens,Ch. They participate with brothers and sisters of the deceased; have a preference over brothers of the half blood, when they are children of a brother or sister of the whole blood, and over uncles and aunts of the deceased. From art. art. 259, in this first title, book 3, are numerous as to descents &c. of estates. The descent is per capita, when all are in equal degree; art. 27 &c. aliter per stirpes or ments, &c. Ch. 142; as roots. If the deceased leave no descendants, his or her estate to limitations goes to his or her father and mother, or other ascendants, and prescripand if there be paternal and maternal ascendants, the paternal tions, Ch. have half and the maternal half, though unequal in numbers; 1 to 30 &c. and female ascendants inherit equally with male ascendants in the same degree. And there is no representation in the ascending line. Hence one alone, male or female, in the ascending line in a nearer degree, paternal or maternal side, excludes all other ascendants in a degree more remote, and in some cases the whole excludes the half blood. These are the general principles, but the detail can be correctly understood. but by examing the said 259 articles. These laws are very complex as to natural children, who may, in certain specified cases, inherit or have alimony. And many classes of such are described. And see Ch. 147, s. 16, &c. 161, a. 16, s. CH. 223. Book 8, tit. &c. 3. The legitime. It seems in Louisiana only a part of the estate can be disposed so as to exclude certain heirs, descendants, or ascendants, as book 3, tit. 2, art. 22 &c. "That portion of the property of which the law forbids the disposal to the prejudice of descendants or ascendants, is called the legitime, that portion is four-fifths of the property in favour of the legitimate children or descendants coming to the succession of their ascendants; and of two thirds of the property in favour of legitimate ascendants coming to the succession of their descendants." Such are called forced heirs; but the owner of the property may disinherit them for just cause. 4. By this article no disposition causa mortis can be 2, art. 81, 90, made, otherwise than by last will or testament, or by codicil; each must be in writing, signed by the testator, and witnessed by three or more witnesses, except some cases of codicils;— if not written by a notary, five witnesses of the place, or seven not of it, are required to a will; and many other precautions to prevent wills being incautiously made, or fraudulently obtained. There are three kinds of testaments or codicils,-the nuncupative or open, the mystic or sheet, and olographic or one written signed and dated by the testator's own hand. No female can be a witness, nor male under sixteen years of age, or insane or infamous person or slave, or legatee. But wills &c. made out of Louisiana, are valid therein, if made according to the laws of the place where made. The wife in Louisiana, as in France, has her separate property, and may, by will or otherwise, dispose of it; and baron and feme can convey to each other in several cases. Lib. 3, tit. 6, 5. "All sales of immoveable property or slaves shall be a. 2, p. 364. made by authentic act, or under private signature ;" and "all verbal sale of any of these things shall be null, as well for third persons as for the contracting parties themselves, and the testimonial proof of it shall not be admitted." "The verbal sale of all moveable effects, whatever may be their value, is valid, but its testimonial proof must be made agreeably to what is directed in the ti le of contracts and conventional obligation in general." But "the sale of any immoveable or slaves, made under private signature, shall have effect to the prejudice of persons not parties to it, only from the day said sale was registered in the office of a notary," unless registered in six or ten days, then from the date; but is valid as to the parties, their heirs, and assigns, though not registered. Art. 3. 6. Generally a citizen of one State is acquainted with the laws in force in the others, for reasons already stated; but the State of Louisiana forms an important exception, because the citizens, and even lawyers, generally, of the other States, are quite unacquainted with the French Civil Code she has Сн. 223. adopted; therefore, to enable them to do business in a legal Art. 17. manner in that State, her laws must, in a special manner, be attended to in several of their most important parts. Louisiana, p. 490. § 7. By statute law, "all species of property may be seized Civil Code of on execution, moveables as well as immoveables, without any exception;" but the sale, after seizure, cannot be made, until the things seized have been appraised, by appraisers appointed by the parties, and sworn; or if the deft. neglect &c., one by the sheriff or judge, who shall make the sale at auction. Even to the usufruit a statute title may be had on judgment and execution, but not to the undivided share of a co-heir in a succession, till the creditor had got partition of the estate among the co-heirs. § 8. So by statute law title to property by occupancy and Civil Code, prescription, is regulated in that State; and the civil code, p. 472. enacted March, 1808, declares occupancy is a mode of acquiring property, by which a thing which belongs to nobody, becomes the property of the person who took possession, with an intention of acquiring a right of ownership upon it. And the act enumerates five modes: 1. By hunting: 2. By fowling: 3. By fishing: 4. By invention, as discovering precious stones, or things abandoned, or a treasure: 5. By capture. In this State questions of fact in civil causes are tried by the court, unless either party demands a jury. 6 Wheat. 129, Mayhew v. Thatcher & al. A record of a judgment in one State is conclusive evidence in another. ART. 17. § 1. Statute titles in the other and new States, formed and settled under said ordinance of Congress, passed July, 1787, before cited, art. 1, s. 3, containing, as there stated, the basis of titles to estates, real and personal, and on the common American principles. If these new States have varied or deviated from those principles, it has been as yet but in an inconsiderable degree, whatever may be the case in future periods of time, except Louisiana. Robinson v, § 2. Some peculiar statute provisions. In Tennessee, stat- 3 Wheat. R. utes permit an equitable title to be asserted in an action at 212, 230, law, but extend not to titles derived under Virginia; nor are Campbell. the statutes of limitations of Tennessee pleadable to such titles under Virginia. And by Virginia law an equitable title, founded on a prior entry on lands, can be shown but in equity, and not in a suit at law. At law the legal title prevails there as at common law. Polk's lessee v. Wendell & al. 5 Wheat. 3. By the laws of Tennessee, whether a grant be absolutely void or voidable only, a junior grantee is not allowed to avail himself of its nullity, as against an innocent purchaser, 293.—See Honeycut, 1 Tenn. R. 30; Dodson v. Cock, Id. 232; Miller v. Holt, Id. 111. Jackson . CH. 223. without notice. See art. 12, s. 6. Decided in ejectment Art. 17. for 5000 acres of land in West Tennessee: 2. Held, if a Williams v. Graham. grant be void, as if the State has no title, or the officer making it no power, the case may be examined at law: 3. A regular warrant is evidence of an entry, and from the existence of the grant, prerequisites may be inferred. See Sevier & al. v. Hill, p. 306. For decisions in North Carolina on the acts of 1777, 1778, 1783, see Taylor's R. 114; North Carolina R. 441; North Carolina Law Repository, 383; holding an entry an essential part of a title. 6 Wheat.577, $4. State of Ohio. The laws of this State require all Clark & al. v. deeds of land to be executed in the presence of two witnesses, and a deed executed in the presence of one witness only, is void, (so was the ordinance of July 13, 1787.) Was decided in ejectment: 2. Held further, a power to convey lands must have all the formalities deeds have, actually conveying lands: 3. Title to lands can be acquired or lost, but by the laws of the State in which they are situated: 4. No exchange of land can be proved or explained by parol. The statute of Ohio, enacted February 14, 1805, provides, "that all deeds for the conveyance of lands, tenements, and hereditaments, situate, lying, and being within the State, shall be signed and sealed by the grantor in the presence of two witnesses, who shall subscribe the said deed or conveyance, attesting the acknowledgment of the signing and sealing thereof; and if executed within the State, shall be acknowledged by the party or parties, or proven by the subscribing witnesses, before a judge of the Court of Common Pleas, or a justice of the peace in any county in the State." 5. Remarks on a few material parts of the said ordinance of Congress of July 13, 1787. These are occasioned by the manner in which it was considered in the great Missouri debate in Congress in 1820 &c. As it has been the foundation of government in numerous States and territories, it is important that certain strong features in it should be well understood, especially as to slavery, impairing contracts, drawing new States into the Union, principles of compact, and it being within the power of Congress to enact it. It was enacted with but one dissenting voice, and had been in 1820 in full operation thirty years and more, quietly and without exception. In that debate on the question, if slavery should be extended to Missouri, this ordinance by the advocates of such slavery was attacked, on the first, fourth, and fifth points, stated above. It was ably defended by the opposers of that slavery, as containing the essence of sound American principles. A senator from the State of Ohio in Congress declared, that in settling that State it had been the cloud by day and the pillar of fire by night. СH. 223. Art. 17. § 6. In that debate it was denied that this ordinance could operate on the principles of compact. It may be observed, that in July 1787, also, when the Federal constitution was adopted, our country consisted of two great portions: 1. The thirteen Old States, including our lands southeast of the river Ohio &c.; this portion was then all under State governments, and contained about 600,000 square miles: 2. The Western Territory, including our lands northwest of that river, containing about 400,000 square miles. This second portion (territory) was then exclusively under the government of Congress. When this ordinance was enacted, no part of the land in this territority had been sold by the United States, and no settlements had been made in it by them. Hence, it was well understood by all parties, that all persons who should purchase and settle lands in it would buy and settle under this ordinance, and so would submit and become parties to it in the meaning most effectually binding them to the terms and principles of it; and so invariable the case was understood prior to this Missouri contest. This idea of a compact, expressed in the ordinance, was as early as April 1784, unanimously adopted in Congress in a number of fundamental principles reported by Mr. Jefferson of Virginia, Chase of Maryland, and Howell of Rhode Island, and voted, South Carolina only dissenting. So the article against slavery was supported March 16, 1785, by a large majority, as an article of compact, and to remain a "fundamental principle of the constitution between the thirteen original States and each of the States" in said territory. And in July 1787, the principle and form of compact were unanimously agreed to and so allowed, until the Missouri contest, by all; then the compact nature in the ordinance seems to have been denied, because, as said, there were no people in this territory to make a second party when the ordinance was passed. If there be no private estates, nor inhabitants in a territory, the sovereign owner (as the Union in Congress then was) has complete authority to establish a system of sales of lands and of government, binding on all who agree to buy and settle under it, from time to time; and who become parties to the system, as they buy and settle under it. And it has been invariably true, that the people of this western territory have purchased their lands, settled and held their estates in it, under the ordinance, and so consented to it, under it lived, made laws, and in fact, as will be further shewn, claimed to be admitted as States into the Union. For Art. 4, sect. 8, the constitution of the United States only provides, "new States may be admitted by Congress into the Union." This affords no claim to be admitted, but barely gives a power to admit, and on admission no claim "to the same rights of sove |