Anda di halaman 1dari 2

Johnson v.

Brief Fact Summary. Plaintiffs sought to have certain land grants purportedly made by Indian
tribal chiefs, recognized by the United States government.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. The title of land which has been discovered and conquered belongs
entirely to the conquering nation, subject only to the right of those natives present to occupy the
Facts. At issue were two purported grants of land by Indian tribes to private individuals, one in
1773 and the other 1775. The lands constituted the Illinois and Piankeshaw nations. Here, the
Plaintiff sought to have the United States government recognize the Plaintiffs title to the lands,
which were alleged to have passed under the grants.
Issue. May Indian tribes give a legally recognizable title in land to private individuals, such that
the title may be received by the private person and upheld against any claims by courts of the
United States?

Held. No. The judgment of the District Court of Illinois denying the Plaintiffs right to
The rules of property must be drawn from and decided by the nation in which the
property which is the subject matter of the lawsuit lies. Due to the historical precedents
established by the European discovery of this North America and the subsequent
conquest and division thereof, the rule was that among the nations of Europe, title
properly belonged to
new land.
Incident to the principle that title belonged to the nation which discovered the new land,
was the subsequent diminishment of the natives ability to dispose of their land. This
impairment of native sovereignty was subject to the recognition that the natives could
live on the land, but that they could not grant the land to a private individual. This was
the case because the land itself was subject to the dominion and control of the nation
The remaining question is whether the United States accepted or rejected the historical
principle. According to the treaty ending the Revolutionary War, Great Britain
relinquished any claim to proprietary and territorial rights of the United States. Thus,
the United States owned the entirety of the lands which were situated within the
boundaries of the states existing at that time. It follows that those natives who lived
within such boundaries did not own title to the land. Therefore, the Plaintiff does not
have a title recognizable by the United States.

Discussion. The Court, in deciding this case, was faced with a situation where the
customs of ownership of lands as between two distinct cultures were at odds. The
native culture did not recognize ownership in quite the same way as the United States
culture. This case is as much a historical footnote as it is a rule of property law one
might see today.