Garnett v. Jenkins

Citations: 33 U.S. 75; 8 L. Ed. 871; 8 Pet. 75; 1834 U.S. LEXIS 567

Court: Supreme Court of the United States; February 24, 1834; Federal Supreme Court; Federal Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Reuben M. Garnett and the heirs of Reuben Garnett, deceased, appeal a dismissal from the circuit court of the United States for the district of Kentucky concerning a claim to 1,164.67 acres of land. The original suit was initiated by Reuben Garnett on December 30, 1815, against Henry Jenkins and others, citizens of Kentucky. The primary legal question revolves around the validity of an entry made by Reuben Garnett on May 10, 1780, under a treasury warrant, specifying the land's location near North Elkhorn Creek. The defendants did not present any title papers, and both parties agreed to limit the court's review to the validity of Garnett's entry to conserve costs. The court below dismissed the complaint, prompting this appeal. 

The opinion of the court, delivered by Justice M'LEAN, emphasizes that for an entry to be valid, the described objects must be publicly known at the time of the entry, and at least one significant reference point must allow the land to be reasonably located. The main issues raised against the entry include the ambiguity regarding the designated creek and the lack of identifiable marked lines or corners. Numerous depositions and surveys were conducted to clarify the entry’s calls.

Patrick Jordan recounts his experience near Elkhorn in 1775, noting he first arrived at Bryant's Station in August 1780, where he served as a guard. He recalls hearing a discussion about the "seventh big fork," which was identified by hunters as Lecompt's Run. Jordan confirms that he knew the creek by that name since 1779 when he helped construct a cabin for Charles Lecompt nearby. He describes Bryant's Station as well-known, located approximately 25-30 miles upstream from Lecompt's Run, which was commonly referred to by that name as early as May 1780. 

John Ficklin, familiar with Bryant's Station since 1781, also notes that he heard Lecompt's Run referred to as the "seventh big fork" around 1782. He confirms the prominence of both Bryant's Station and North Elkhorn during that time and estimates the distance between the station and the run at about thirty miles. 

Jacob Stucker, who has known Elkhorn waters since 1780, corroborates that Lecompt's Run was called the seventh big fork by hunters as early as 1780-1781, despite not seeing the creek until 1782. He lists the seven major forks of Elkhorn, with Lecompt's Run being the seventh. 

Robert Hortness, acquainted with North Elkhorn in 1784, identifies the seven significant forks, including Lecompt's Run, while noting smaller branches like Opossum Run and Lane's Run were not considered major. He believes Garnett's survey could have been directed to Lecompt's Run based on its description. 

Lastly, Hugh Shannon states that Lecompt's Run has been known by that name since 1776 and references improvements made by Lecompt in 1775, although he never heard it called the seventh big fork. He became familiar with Bryant's Station in the winter of 1779.

Ash Emerson identifies seven significant streams entering North Elkhorn on the north side below Bryant's station: David's fork, Little North fork, Cherry's run, Miller's run, Lane's run, and M'Cracken's run, with M'Cracken's being the seventh. He recalls M'Connell's run and Dry run from 1776, and notes that names varied among some creeks. He emphasizes that Lecompt's run was never referred to as the seventh big fork, and although M'Cracken's and Lane's runs are smaller, Lane's run extends as far as the others.

Lewis Valandingham, familiar with the waterways since 1782, supports Emerson’s account. John Miller, acquainted with Lecompt's run since spring 1776, acknowledges it by that name, naming the seven runs as David's fork, Little North fork, Cherry's run, Miller's run, M'Cracken's, M'Connell's, and Lecompt's. John Williams, who knew North Elkhorn in 1775, claims he couldn't identify a seventh fork by name in 1780, affirming that Lecompt's run has been consistently known by that name since 1776.

James M'Connell also recognized Lecompt's run in 1776 without alternative names until recent years, noting that he would identify M'Cracken's run as the seventh fork. John Smith, acquainted with North Elkhorn since 1773, supports this by stating he has only known Lecompt's run by that name, stating it lies 21 to 22 miles below Bryant's station. He mentions that Lane's and M'Cracken's runs received their names in 1775, highlighting their smaller mouths but substantial adjoining land.

Anthony Lindsay recalls the boundaries of Garnett's land claim on Lecompt's run in 1791, while Henry Herdon, residing at Bryant's station in 1781, confirms Lane's run as a principal branch. James Bell notes in 1789 that Lane's run and others were recognized as large branches, with James Jones corroborating that M'Cracken's and Lane's runs were similarly classified. James Connelly, who bought land near M'Connell's run in 1794, consistently regarded Lane's run as a significant branch and recounts efforts to locate Garnett's property corner at Lecompt's run, leading to the discovery of a marked ash tree.

William Mosby has lived at the mouth of Lane's Run for 40 years, noting that it is one of the largest streams flowing into North Elkhorn from the north side, originating from a dividing ridge. The stream's mouth is obstructed by a nearby milldam, yet it discharges more water than adjacent streams. John Payne, a resident near North Elkhorn since 1788 and a surveyor of Scott County since 1792, is familiar with several streams that flow into Elkhorn, including Lane's Run. Joseph R. Lee has known Lecompt's Run for over 32 years, recalling significant timber near its mouth, and conducted searches for property markers related to Garnett's claim without success. John Garnett, who lived near Lecompt's Run, claimed ignorance about the boundaries of the land he occupied. Joseph S. Norris measured the streams and determined that Cherry's, Miller's, and Dry Run are larger than Lane's, acknowledging that their forks could compare in size. He attempted to locate the mouth of Garnett's claim but lacked clarity on its exact position. Garnett recounted being present during the original survey of Reuben Garnett's claim approximately 45 years ago, stating that the survey began near a large cedar tree above Lecompt's Run and included marked corners and lines. He later compared Lane's Run unfavorably in size to other streams, describing it as narrow, at times jumpable. Garnett had possession of his claim for 12 years before being ousted by a court judgment favoring Hodges, which allowed for a potential land survey for compensation.

Lewis Valandingham became familiar with Lane's run between 1780 and 1782, which was regarded as a stream comparable to Lecompt's run and other nearby streams. By 1782, Lecompt's run was already named. Various runs, including Little North Fork, Cherry's run, and Lane's run, flow into North Elkhorn between Bryant's station and Lecompt's run. John Burns recalls that approximately thirty years prior, Samuel Ayres had offered a reward to locate a line or corner of Garnett's survey, but despite extensive searching and inquiries with John Garnett, neither was found. Garnett speculated that the land still existed.

William Poindexter indicated that Garnett claimed land about three-quarters of a mile below Lecompt's run. Surveyor Joseph S. Norris reported on the dimensions of streams feeding into Elkhorn north of Bryant's station, detailing the widths of various runs at multiple points, including Lane's run, which is two thousand one hundred and six poles long and measures two poles and ten links at its mouth. 

The document asserts that certain critical points must be established for the validity of Garnett's land entry: that Bryant's station was settled and that North Elkhorn was recognized at the time of the entry. The locative or special call within the entry—specifically, the description "near the mouth of the seventh big fork falling into the north side of the north fork of Elkhorn"—is under scrutiny. The term "near the mouth" may be interpreted to mean "at the mouth," which could enhance its precision. The main question is whether this description is sufficiently certain to guide someone with reasonable diligence to the disputed land; if not, the entry would be invalid.

The designation of the 'seventh big fork' is contested, particularly whether it refers to Lecompt's run. Historical evidence indicates that Lecompt's run has been known by that name since 1776, attributed to a man named Lecompt who improved the area. Other nearby streams had varying names, with some known by different appellations. A call for an object known by multiple names can validate an entry. The case hinges on whether Lecompt's run can be identified as the 'seventh big fork.' Some witnesses assert the stream was called the 'seventh big fork' at the time of the entry, while many others only recognized it as Lecompt's run. 

The evidence lacks consensus on the name 'seventh big fork,' with testimonies indicating that some individuals, familiar with the region, never heard it referred to that way. The nature of water streams makes natural boundaries generally more reliable than artificial ones, despite potential changes over time. Conflicting testimonies among witnesses complicate the situation, with some claiming they could locate Garnett's land on Lecompt's run, while others would look for it on M'Connell's run or further upstream. 

The burden of proof rests on the complainants to establish their entry, as the defendants have possessed the land under legal titles for many years. A long-standing interest in property should not be disrupted without clear proof supporting the complainants’ claims. If the complainants can substantiate their entry convincingly, they may seek equitable relief; however, if their claims lack clarity or balance, they will not succeed.

The court relies on a surveyor's report rather than solely on depositions to clarify the characteristics of the water streams feeding into North Elkhorn. The report indicates that Lane's run, which the complainants argue is not one of the significant forks entering North Elkhorn, is comparable in size to Miller's run, an accepted fork, and nearly as wide as Cherry's run. Lane's run is six and a half miles long and reportedly discharges more water than some nearby branches. The court questions the validity of Garnett's land entry, arguing that if the seventh big fork is not Lecompt's run, then the entry is invalid. There is ambiguity in whether Lane's run should be counted alongside Miller's and Cherry's runs, which complicates Garnett's claim. The witness John Garnett claims the survey for his entry was conducted at the mouth of Lane's run, but no evidence of this survey exists, leading to doubts about its accuracy. The principle established is that if a land entry's essential call is uncertain and lacks controlling calls, it cannot be sustained. The court finds that the call for the 'seventh big fork' is better aligned with M'Connell's run instead of Lecompt's run, rendering the entry uncertain. Consequently, the circuit court's dismissal of the bill is affirmed, with costs awarded.