翻訳と辞書
Words near each other
・ Johnson Township, Knox County, Indiana
・ Johnson Township, LaGrange County, Indiana
・ Johnson Township, LaPorte County, Indiana
・ Johnson Township, Polk County, Minnesota
・ Johnson Township, Ripley County, Indiana
・ Johnson Township, Scott County, Indiana
・ Johnson Township, Washington County, Arkansas
・ Johnson Township, Webster County, Iowa
・ Johnson Tshuma
・ Johnson University
・ Johnson University Florida
・ Johnson v Agnew
・ Johnson v Gore Wood & Co
・ Johnson v Unisys Ltd
・ Johnson v. Eisentrager
Johnson v. M'Intosh
・ Johnson v. Robison
・ Johnson v. Southern Pacific Co.
・ Johnson v. United States (2000)
・ Johnson v. United States (2015)
・ Johnson v. Zerbst
・ Johnson Valley, California
・ Johnson Village, Colorado
・ Johnson Wagner
・ Johnson Wax Headquarters
・ Johnson Wildlife Management Area
・ Johnson William Richardson
・ Johnson Zuze
・ Johnson&Jonson
・ Johnson's Addition


Dictionary Lists
翻訳と辞書 辞書検索 [ 開発暫定版 ]
スポンサード リンク

Johnson v. M'Intosh : ウィキペディア英語版
Johnson v. M'Intosh

''Johnson v. M'Intosh'', 21 U.S. (8 Wheat.) 543 (1823),〔(Davison v. Gibson ), 56 Fed. Rep., 443. SEC. 156.
Citing the case of Johnson v. McIntosh (8 Wheat.,585), the court quotes: "It has never been doubted that cither the United States or the several States had a clear title to all the lands within the boundary lines described in the treaty with Great Britain of 1783 (8 Stat.L.,80) subject only to the Indian right of occupancy,and that the exclusive power to extinguish that right was vested in the Government, which might constitutionally exercise it."〕 is a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court that held that private citizens could not purchase lands from Native Americans. As the facts were recited by Chief Justice John Marshall, the successor in interest to a private purchase from the Piankeshaw attempted to maintain an action of ejectment against the holder of a federal land patent.
The case is one of the most influential and well-known decisions of the Marshall Court, a fixture of the first-year curriculum in nearly all US law schools. Marshall's prosaic and eminently quotable opinion lays down the foundations of the doctrine of aboriginal title in the United States, and the related discovery doctrine. However, the vast majority of the opinion is ''dicta''; as valid title is a basic element of the cause of action for ejectment, the holding does not extend to the validity of M'Intosh's title, much less the property rights of the Piankeshaw. Thus, all that the opinion holds with respect to aboriginal title is that it is inalienable, a principle that remains well-established law in nearly all common law jurisdictions.
Citation to ''Johnson'' has been a staple of federal and state cases related to Native American land title for 200 years. Like ''Johnson'', nearly all of those cases involve land disputes between two non-Native parties, typically one with a chain of title tracing to a federal or state government and the other with a chain of title predating US sovereignty. A similar trend can be seen in the early case law of Australia, Canada, and New Zealand. The first land dispute involving an indigenous party to reach to the Supreme Court was ''Cherokee Nation v. Georgia'' (1831).
==Background==
Thomas Johnson, one of the first Supreme Court justices, bought land from Piankeshaw Native American tribes in 1773 and 1775. The plaintiffs were lessees of Thomas Johnson's descendants, who had inherited the land. The defendant, William M'Intosh (pronounced "McIntosh"), subsequently obtained a land patent, according to the facts as Marshall accepted them, to this same land from the United States federal government. In fact, the two parcels did not overlap at all.〔Kades, 148 U. Pa. L. Rev. at 1092 ("Mapping the United Companies" claims alongside M'Intosh's purchases, as enumerated in the district court records, shows that the litigants' land claims did not overlap. Hence, there was no real 'case or controversy,' and ''M'ntosh'', like another leading early Supreme Court land case, ''Fletcher v. Peck'', appears to have been a sham." (footnotes omitted)).〕 Further, there is evidence that the parties were aware the tracts did not overlap and purposely misrepresented the facts to the court to obtain a ruling.〔Kades, 148 U. Pa. L. Rev. at 1093 ("M'Intosh did not contest a single fact alleged in the complaint, jurisdictional or otherwise. Perhaps he participated in framing the complaint, which became the stipulated facts of the case. Neither the district court nor the Supreme Court questioned any of these facts. Everyone involved, it seems, wanted a decision on the legal question of the validity of private purchases from the Native Americans." (footnote omitted)).〕

抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア(Wikipedia)
ウィキペディアで「Johnson v. M'Intosh」の詳細全文を読む



スポンサード リンク
翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース

Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.