Johnson & Graham's Lessee v.

McIntosh, 21 US 543 (1823)

Final Case Analysis

LEGL 5450
Webster University
LEGL 5450 Final Case

Case Heading/Caption
Johnson & Graham's Lessee v. McIntosh, 21 US 543 (1823)
ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF ILLINOIS
Argued: February 14, 1823; February 16, 1823; February 17, 1823; February 18, 1823
Decided: February 27, 1823; February 28, 1823

Substantive Facts
Johnson and Graham, the British plaintiffs, claimed entitlement to the land in their statements
under two grants alleging the first in 1773 and the final in 1775 by the Piankeshaw Indian
chiefs before the American Revolution. Indian tribes of Illinois and the Piankeshaw nations
question if the claimants' title is documented in the US courts. On July 20, 1818, the US
approved the sale and grant of the land to the defendant, McIntosh. The granted land spread
across over eleven thousand acres. The plaintiffs claimed that the Indian chiefs had the
authority to implement the transference provided it was given by their people and the tribes'
chiefs were the rightful owners of the sold land. The investigation limited Indians to the
power to give and to the private people to receive under a title sustained in the courts.
William Murray, one of the grantees and a subject of Great Britain, paid the deed
value of $24,000 to the Illinois Indians. On December 5, 1775, a notary public, Louis Bomer,
authorized the seizure of the land, to which Lewis Viviat paid the value of $31,000 to the
Piankeshaw Indians. Virginia absolved its dependence on Great Britain on May 6, 1776, then
transferred to the Congress of the United States in 1783. On July 20, 1818, the US officers
granted 11,560 acres of land to William McIntosh, the defendant, who was the rightful
owner. When one of the grantees, Thomas Johnson, died in 1775, his shares transferred to his
heirs, then his son, Joshua Johnson, and grandson, Thomas J. Graham, became lessors.
However, the defendant, William McIntosh, was always a citizen of the State of Illinois, and
all the predecessors did not have any claims to the lands which the American Revolution
terminated. Henceforth, the judgment favored the defendant, McIntosh, since the plaintiffs
raised a "writ of error" for the lower court to revise decisions rendered. The defendant,
McIntosh, however, could not claim the title because the plaintiffs claimed that their
ownership was superior to McIntosh's title. The plaintiffs' claims emanated from the
decisions of the British royals for Virginia as the first colony. McIntosh gained the title from
the District Court of Illinois as a land gift from Congress. The Plaintiffs wanted to revise the
decision as they considered their claim superior to the defendants.

Procedural Facts
Before the American Revolution, British nationals and their heirs, the plaintiffs, stated
that they had a claim to the lands of the Piankeshaw Indians, which continued despite the US
granting the land to the defendants by the District Court of Illinois. Consequently, the
plaintiffs wanted the decision of the Court revised. The US exclusively determines the
rightful owners without interference from the Europeans. The European relations with the
natives could not impose rights once the US controlled the lands. While the Europeans
considered the relations with the natives, the fact that they considered themselves rightful
owners no longer remained valid once the US took over the colonies.
LEGL 5450 Final Case

Legal Issue/Legal Question

Did the defendants' claim precede the plaintiffs' prerogatives regarding the lands allegedly
owned by the Piankeshaw Indians?

Holding
Yes, the Court ruled that the defendants had the right of ownership of the land allegedly
owned by the Piankeshaw Indians.

Rationale
The Court based its decisions on the premises that the Piankeshaw Indians did not own the
lands, so they could not legally transfer. The British renounced all its rights and claims to the
US; moreover, the rationale followed the statute where Virginia’s Act on land passed in 1779,
declared exclusive rights preventive measures from Indian-owned lands as its own territory
even purchase from unauthorized people. As such, the statute annulled all deeds that the
Indians made to private users of the lands. The US had explicitly complied, given that the
people of the US embrace the country and can proclaim themselves to the attained titles. The
people of the US have the exclusive right to obliterate the Indian title by compensation or
conquest, which allows the implementation of sovereignty over lands. The US had absolute
authority over granting and residing in lands in the previously colonized states.

Dissenting Opinion
The US Courts did not recognize Indian tribes granting lands northwest of the Ohio River to
private citizens in 1773 and 1775. The effect of the Proclamation of 1763 was that European
entitlement claims of the lands, including the British government's exclusive rights to the
Indian lands irrespective of wars or treaties, had passed to the US. Consequently, the US
owned the lands the Indians could only inhabit but not sell, as the nature of the Indian title
was subordinate to the absolute ultimate title of the US government. Post-American
Independence, the colonies had to comply with the US government and absolve themselves
from previous land grants as only the US determined the rightful owners of the lands.
LEGL 5450 Final Case

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/21/543/#tab-opinion-1922743