Case
Johnson v. M’Intosh
Answer: Johnson v. M’Intosh (1823). The Court held that private individuals cannot purchase land directly from Native American tribes; such deeds are void. Tribes held a right of occupancy; underlying title vested in the sovereign, which had the exclusive right to extinguish occupancy and convey absolute title. The dispute pitted pre-Revolution tribal deeds against a later federal patent.
Rule to remember
Johnson v. M’Intosh (U.S. 1823) established the Discovery Doctrine in American property law: tribes held an aboriginal right of occupancy, while ultimate title rested in the sovereign, which alone could extinguish occupancy and convey absolute title.
Key elements and checks
- Discovery gave the discovering sovereign ultimate title.
- Tribes retained a right of occupancy recognized at law.
- Only the sovereign could extinguish occupancy (by purchase or conquest).
- Private purchases from tribes were void unless authorized by the sovereign.
- Competing non-Native claims: a governmental grant defeats a prior private tribal deed.
In the source’s words
““the sole right of acquiring the soil from the natives.””
JOHNSON and GRAHAM'S Lessee v. WILLIAM M'INTOSH, 21 U.S. (8 Wheat.) 543 (1823) – Opinion Text (LII)
““subject only to the Indian right of occupancy””
JOHNSON and GRAHAM'S Lessee v. WILLIAM M'INTOSH, 21 U.S. (8 Wheat.) 543 (1823) – Opinion Text (LII)
Meaningful state variation: several states enacted exclusive preemption statutes; for example, Virginia’s 1779 act annulled deeds by Indians to individuals and affirmed exclusive governmental purchasing rights. Specific state texts varied by era, but the federal rule in this case controlled alienation against private grantees.