It appears by the report of the attorney-general, as well as by Mr. Chalmers's observations, that it never was the opinion of the British government that these lands were disannexed by the proclamation. Journal of Senate, 7th September, 1789.

As to the idea, that the grants of a legislature may be void because the legislature are corrupt, it appears to me to be subject to insuperable difficulties. Their situation was the same, their title was the same, with that of every other member of the community who holds land by regular conveyances from the original patentee. The right of jurisdiction is essentially connected to, or rather identified with, the national sovereignty. It depends upon the law of nations, not upon municipal right. That a treaty of peace was concluded between Great Britain and Spain, in 1763, in which the latter ceded to the former Florida, with Fort St. Augustin and the bay of Pensacola. The right was denied by the commissioners on the part of the United States, who formed the treaty, and was given up by Great Britain when the present line was established.

After the opinion of the court was delivered, the parties agreed to amend the pleadings, and the cause was continued for further consideration. It is not like our tenures; they have no idea of a title to the soil itself. The right was not denied, but the purpose for which it was executed.

Certainly an allegation, that the principal has no right to give a power, is not denied by alleging that he has given a proper power to the agent. See the Federalist, and Journals of House of Rep. 21st August, 1789. The first count of the declaration states that Peck, by his deed of bargain and sale dated the 14th of May, 1803, in consideration of 3,000 dollars, sold and conveyed to Fletcher, 15,000 acres of land lying in common and undivided in a tract described as follows: beginning on the river Mississippi, where the latitude 32 deg. 2 Tucker's Bl. governor of that state, dated the 13th of January, 1795, to the said James Gunn and others, under the name of James Gunn, Mathew M'Allister, and George Walker and their associates, and their heirs and assigns in fee-simple, under the name of the Georgia company; which patent was issued by virtue of an act of the legislature of Georgia, passed the 7th of January, 1795, entitled 'An act supplementary to an act for appropriating part of the unlocated territory of this state for the payment of the late state troops, and for other purposes therein mentioned, and declaring the right of this state to the unappropriated territory thereof, for the protection and support of the frontiers of this state, and for other purposes. Is the clause to be considered as inhibiting the state from impairing the obligation of contracts between two individuals, but as excluding from that inhibition contracts made with itself?

All these public acts recognised the title to be in Georgia. In fact, a power to produce its own annihilation is an absurdity in terms. And the said Peck further saith, that on the 7th of January, 1795, at a session of the general assembly of the said state duly holden at Augusta within the same, according to the provisions of the said constitution, the said general assembly, then and there possessing all the powers vested in the legislature of the said state by virtue of the said constitution, passed the act above mentioned by the said Fletcher in the assignment of the breach aforesaid, which act is in the words following, that is to say, 'An act supplementary,' &c. Here was recited the whole act, which, after a long preamble, declares the jurisdictional and territorial rights, and the fee-simple to be in the state, and then enacts, that certain portions of the vacant lands should be sold to four distinct associations of individuals, calling themselves respectively, 'The Georgia Company,' 'The Georgia Mississippi Company,' 'The Upper Mississippi Company,' and 'The Tennessee Company.'. § 81. p. 37. and § 209. b. That on the 6th of May, 1789, at Augusta, in the State of Georgia, the people of that state by their delegates, duly authorized and empowered to form, declare, ratify, and confirm a constitution for the government of the said state, did form, declare, ratify, and confirm such constitution, in the words following: Here was inserted the whole constitution, the 16th section of which declares, that the general assembly hall have power to make all laws and ordinances which they shall deem necessary and proper for the good of the state which shall not be repugnant to this constitution.

See Chief Justice Jay's opinion in the case of Chisholm v. The State of Georgia, reported in a pamphlet published in 1793.

Hence the feudal tenures in this country. Following the Treaty of Paris ending the American Revolution, Georgia claimed possession of the Yazoo lands, a 54,000 sq mi (140,000 km2) region of the Indian Reserve, west of its own territory. ERROR to the circuit court for the district of Massachusetts, in an action of covenant brought by Flecher against Peck. That in April, 1787, a convention was entered into between the states of South Carolina and Georgia settling the boundary line between them.
Accordingly, the law that repealed the initial conveyance must be struck down as unconstitutional.

A contract executed, as well as one which is executory, contains obligations binding on the parties. 52 sec.

If then Georgia had good title on the 7th of January, 1795, the next question is, had the legislature of that state a right to sell? It is no answer to the breach assigned.

Star Athletica, L.L.C.

By the revolution, all the right and royal prerogatives devolved upon the people of the several states, to be exercised in such manner as they should prescribe, and by such governments as they should erect. in 1788) declined accepting a cession of the territory from Georgia, not because the United States had already a title, but because the lands were too remote, &c. There is nothing in the constitution of the United States, which can give her a title. There is no question that a State does not have the power to repeal its own land grant, and there is no need to rely on the Constitution of the United States for that proposition.

3. p. 363. The right of disposing of the lands belonging to the state naturally devolved upon the legislative body; who were to enact such laws as should authorize the sale and conveyance of them.

The jury afterwards describe the situation of the lands mentioned in the plaintiff's declaration, in such manner that their lying within the limits of Georgia, as defined in the proclamation of 1763, in the treaty of peace, and in the convention between that state and South Carolina, has not been questioned.

The states which advocated that principle did not think proper to refuse to join the confederacy because it was not inserted among the articles of confederation, but they protested against their assent to the union being taken as evidence of their abandonment of the principle.

The validity of a law cannot be questioned because undue influence may have been used in obtaining it. The Europeans always claimed and exercised the right of conquest over the soil. My confidence, however, in the respectable gentlemen who have been engaged for the parties, has induced me to abandon my scruples, in the belief that they would never consent to impose a mere feigned case upon this court. There can be no solid objection to adopting the technical definition of the word 'contract,' given by Blackstone.

The breach assigned is, that the legislature had no power to sell. It was later discovered that many of the legislators received bribes for agreeing to that conveyance.